ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

Mobile Network Operators

Nigel Mills: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of competition in the mobile network operators’ market.

Edward Vaizey: Mr Speaker, may I begin by apologising for the fact that the Secretary of State cannot be here for questions? I trust that you were appropriately informed: he is on a trip representing the Government in India.
	It is for Ofcom to assess competition in the mobile communications market, and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that it has found the UK mobile market to be one of the most open and competitive in the world.

Nigel Mills: I thank the Minister for his answer, but he will know of the recent decisions by the big networks to bring their retailing in-house so that they can keep more of the profits, resulting in the closure of Phones 4u. These decisions risk reducing customer choice and raising prices. Is it not time to ask Ofcom to look at this again before we lose all our retail competitors and end up with a mobile phone market as rigged as the energy market?

Edward Vaizey: It is not appropriate for me to comment on the commercial issues surrounding the decision of the owners of Phones 4u to put the company into receivership, but it is possible to purchase mobile phones not just through the operators’ shops but on the high street and from online outlets; and mobile virtual network operators are also providing a great deal of competition.

Diana Johnson: Question 2, Mr Speaker.

Edward Vaizey: Funding decisions for the arts are made independently of Ministers by the Arts Council England, but I am delighted to say—

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting the eloquence of his flow, or the flow of his eloquence, but I think he is seeking to group this question with Question 3.

Edward Vaizey: Mr Speaker, I am incredibly grateful for your guidance. You are quite right that, with your permission, I would like to take this question with Question 3, which I also hotly anticipate. Thank you for correcting me. My eagerness got ahead of me in wishing to communicate to the hon. Lady that for the first time—[Hon. Members: “Get on with it!”] I have been asked to get on with it; things are going from bad to worse, aren’t they?

Arts Funding outside London

Diana Johnson: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of Government funding decisions on the arts and culture outside London.

Ben Bradshaw: What recent assessment he has made of the balance of funding for arts organisations in the English regions.

Edward Vaizey: Funding decisions for the arts are made independently of Ministers by Arts Council England, but I am delighted to say that 53% of the funding that the Arts Council recently allocated to non-profit organisations will go outside London. It is the first time that the majority of that funding will have gone outside London.

Diana Johnson: But public funding for the arts in London is 15 times greater than for outside the capital, and Hull city council has seen a 25% cut to its funding during this Parliament. How does the Minister expect Hull to deliver the national city of culture in 2017 with these unfair funding formulas?

Edward Vaizey: I have to say that the hon. Lady’s colleagues in Hull are much more bullish about being the capital of culture and are looking forward to delivering it in 2017. They have received £3 million of funding from the Arts Council. Indeed, the Arts Council has set up a pop-up office in Hull to assist with the capital of culture.

Ben Bradshaw: The Minister has been the only witness to the Select Committee’s inquiry into the balance of arts funding in this country not to accept that there is a gross imbalance in funding in favour of London and against regions such as the north-east and the south-west. Even his own chairman of the Arts Council, whom he appointed, accepts that there is a problem. Will he now read the chairman’s evidence and the evidence from all the other witnesses who disagree with him, join the consensus and do something about it?

Edward Vaizey: That is as opposed to when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State and did absolutely nothing about it. I look forward to receiving copies of the many speeches he made when he was Secretary of State talking about the imbalance of funding between London and the regions. We are doing something about
	it, which is why more funding is now going outside London and why the chairman of the Arts Council said:
	“judge us in two years’ time”.
	The council accepts that there is an issue and is going to do something about it.

Steven Baker: London is notoriously awash with wealthy patrons of the arts. Why not shift on to them the burden of funding the arts in London?

Edward Vaizey: I was recently at an event at Tate where we were praising the Ofer family, who not only have given millions to the National Maritime museum but recently gave £10 million to Tate Modern. There is a great deal of philanthropy in London. I am also pleased that there is a lot outside London—for example, the recent donation by Andrew and Zoë Law of £1 million to the Lowry in Salford.

Philip Hollobone: May I impress upon the Minister the popularity and importance to small local communities of highly localised heritage and arts centres such as those in Desborough, Rothwell and Burton Latimer in the Kettering constituency? For relatively small sums of money, very big things can be done in small local communities, to the immense benefit of large numbers of people.

Edward Vaizey: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why I am so pleased that the majority of arts funding is now going outside London. However, it is also important to stress that many of the organisations that are funded in London—because they have London postcodes—are touring organisations whose work is seen far and wide outside the capital.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Minister will know that there are many national museums outside London which are important to national culture, one being the National Media museum in Bradford. He will be aware that the council recently announced £1 million over three years to invest in this museum. Could he give an update on the Government’s thoughts about the future of national museums outside London?

Edward Vaizey: I have been very grateful for the opportunity to work so constructively with the hon. Gentleman on the future of the National Media museum in Bradford, and I was delighted when I heard the news about the council’s funding support. We continue to support a lot of national museums outside London. The Science museum is a particularly good example, particularly given its work with the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, where it has made a real difference.

Barry Sheerman: In my experience the Minister is quite a nice bloke, but he does not get it. If he was the Member for Huddersfield and a Yorkshire MP, he would see the decimation of the arts and culture coming to our region, which were so successful during the Tour de France. Tourism, the arts and culture are intimately interlinked. We see Opera North, the Festival of Light in Huddersfield and so many other iconic events in danger because of Government cuts.

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Gentleman is a very nice man in my experience; no Division is needed to pass that motion. When it comes to the arts and culture in the north and north-east, the list is endless: Sage Gateshead; the Yorkshire sculpture park, which I think is the national museum of the year; and the flourishing Opera North. My glass is very much half-full when it comes to the fantastic cultural delights to be found all over Yorkshire.

Tourism

Jeremy Lefroy: What recent estimate he has made of the contribution of tourism to the economy.

Helen Grant: The tourism industry is worth an estimated £127 billion gross value added to the UK economy and provides almost 10% of all the jobs in the UK.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the Minister for her response. In Staffordshire, tourism earns £1.4 billion a year and employs 28,000 people, thanks to the excellent work of the county of Staffordshire and the city of Stoke-on-Trent. Next year, Staffordshire will host a qualifying round for the international Ironman competition, as well as the 2015 Corporate games. Given the importance of sporting events to visitor numbers around the country, what work is her Department doing to attract major sporting events to the UK? Will she ensure that, as far as possible, a Minister is present at each of them to show the Department’s support?

Helen Grant: Considerable work is being done to ensure that we continue to bid for and host major sporting events. We have had numerous events during the course of the last three years. Hosting such events is good for the economy and tourism and of course inspires people to get involved in sport. I am sure that next year’s Ironman triathlon in Staffordshire will boost tourism even further, and I will do everything I can to ensure that a Minister attends the competition at the appropriate time.

Chris Bryant: The trouble is that a large number of the events organised around the country, which many people travel to both from overseas and from within this country, are organised by local authorities. However, local authorities up and down the land are cutting these events, quite simply because they do not have enough money and these events are not one of the statutory provisions that they have to make. Will the Government finally own up and admit that it is their cuts in Westminster to local authority budgets that are cutting off our noses to spite our economic faces?

Helen Grant: No, I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Considerable amounts of money go into marketing the country. The GREAT campaign has been very successful and the Chancellor recently announced a 50% increase. The local growth fund, the regional growth fund and the coastal communities fund have also been helpful in growing tourism locally and organising major sporting events.

Harriet Harman: Our tourism industry is a vital part of our economy, employing over 3 million people, with huge potential for growth in every region in England, in Scotland and in Wales, but it could do even better, especially with the growing number of tourists from China and the other BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia and India. In fact, our market share of Chinese tourists is falling. What it needs is the coherent backing of Government—transport links, visa processing, skills development, and local and regional regeneration. What is the Minister doing to ensure that her Department leads the rest of Government to deliver for the tourism industry?

Helen Grant: Our tourism strategy has been very successful. It has seen robust visa reform, cuts in air passenger duty and the creation of a tourism council. Millions of pounds have also been spent on the GREAT campaign. As a result, we have seen record visitor numbers, a record spend and an estimated £127 billion going into the economy as gross value added. I note that the right hon. and learned Lady recently launched a new tourism strategy, but I do not think it adds any more to what we are already doing, and I am not prepared to take finger-pointing from her on tourism issues.

Russell Brown: Are figures available to show what has been happening in tourism over recent years, in respect of, say, a reduction in the number of UK citizens travelling overseas and an increase in foreign visitors? Is there something to give us a real picture of what is happening on the ground across the UK?

Helen Grant: Various stats are always collected. As I said, we have had record visitor numbers and a record spend. The figures are monitored very carefully. The Deloitte report is always a useful document, but I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with a selection of stats if he would find it helpful.

Rural Broadband

Meg Hillier: What assessment he has made of the conclusions of the 50th report from the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 2013-14, on the rural broadband programme.

Edward Vaizey: The Government agreed with the Committee’s recommendations and we have made good progress on implementing much of what it recommended.

Meg Hillier: Will the Minister finally acknowledge that there was a flaw—a major flaw—in the approach to rural broadband because the bid was drawn up to favour one company that could effectively meet the criteria? Is it not now time for the Minister to find a plan B to deliver proper, superfast broadband in rural areas, as well as in inner-city areas such as mine in Shoreditch?

Edward Vaizey: No, I do not accept that at all. The plan was drawn up to encourage open competition, but it is important to remember that anyone who bid for this funding had to allow competitors to use a publicly
	funded network. BT was the only company prepared to accept those recommendations. In urban areas, there is plenty of healthy competition, and I note that in the east end of London—an area she so ably represents—Virgin Media is now investing in increasing its footprint, covering an additional 100,000 premises.

Eric Ollerenshaw: On broadband connections, will the Minister find out why new housing developments, such as the Quay and Moor hospital site in Lancaster, can be built with no telephone or internet connection until a resident moves in and then has to rely on BT to put the connections in at whatever leisurely pace BT chooses?

Edward Vaizey: We have sat down with various telephone companies— including BT, but also Virgin Media and other companies such as Hyperoptic— and developers to work out a protocol to ensure that all new developments are notified to these telcos. Only this morning I received a letter from the chief executive of BT Openreach, which talked about the progress made and the additional engineers hired.

Tom Greatrex: One concern about broadband services in rural areas is the way in which some customers end up being charged more than those in other areas even though there is no difference in the cost base for the suppliers. My constituent George Drain is in the process of moving from an urban area to a rural area in Scotland. The infrastructure is already there, but his supplier is charging him considerably more in the area to which he is moving, under cover of the market segmentation defined by Ofcom. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that that is reviewed to make sure that people pay a fair price for their broadband services?

Edward Vaizey: It is important to emphasise again—I made the same point in answer to the question about mobile phones—that we have one of the most competitive broadband markets in the world and very low prices. We pay on average about half the price that would be paid in America. I cannot comment on the specific example, but if the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me about it, I will certainly look into it.

Robert Jenrick: Rural broadband in Nottinghamshire suffers from the reality that the target of either 95% or 98% of the population is calculated by residence rather than by population. Of course, in a predominantly urban county such as Nottinghamshire, the vast majority of homes that broadband will not reach lie in my constituency and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Is there any chance with future broadband schemes of changing the formula in order to cover residents rather than residences?

Edward Vaizey: Some £10 million is going into the Nottinghamshire rural broadband roll-out, and we are planning to cover almost 50,000 premises, but it is hard to see how we could change the criterion to the number of people who lived in those houses. If we are to obtain value for money, we need to get to as many premises as possible with the money that is available.

Helen Goodman: The whole House knows that the roll-out of rural broadband is 22 months late. Yesterday, however, in answer to my questions, the Minister admitted that after three years only two of the 135 sites involved in the mobile infrastructure project had gone live, and that only £20 million of the £150 million for the super-connected cities programme had been spent. The targets are not going to be met. The Minister is lucky that he does not earn his living as a pizza delivery boy. Will he now apologise to the millions whom he has let down?

Edward Vaizey: I am sure that pizzas were not being delivered last night to the Labour women’s dinner, which I gather took place at the Imperial War museum. No doubt the hon. Lady will want to join me in congratulating the museum, which is so ably led by Di Lees, on its magnificent refurbishment, which has introduced the world war one galleries.
	I am pleased to confirm that we are bang on target for our roll-out of superfast broadband. We expect to deliver it to 90% of premises by early 2016, but I expect that, given the pace of the programme, we shall exceed that target. The mobile infrastructure project is a pioneering project which has already brought many benefits to rural areas, and I am pleased to see that the super-connected voucher scheme is well under way.

Tessa Munt: I spoke to the Minister again in July about broadband in my area, and showed him the map of the proposed coverage. It seems that exchanges just a couple of miles away from main roads such as the A38 and the A370, where fibre-optic cables were laid years ago, cannot be connected, and—to use BT Openreach’s description—the “poor-quality cables” around new cabinets that have been fitted in places such as Wells mean that previously generally reliable but slow services running at 750 kilobits have become desperately unreliable and pathetically slow, at about 250 kilobits. There is no point in changing the provider, because all the signals are carried over the same wires. What do my constituents have to do to get superfast broadband?

Edward Vaizey: We are delivering superfast broadband to Devon and Somerset, and under our programme, which is worth some £50 million, it will reach 90% of premises. However, as my hon. Friend says, this is a very complex engineering project which involves very complex work. I am particularly happy to praise the work that BT has done in many areas where it is already well ahead of schedule.

Online Access (Disabled People)

Chi Onwurah: What steps he is taking to support people with a disability to get online.

Edward Vaizey: The Government Digital Service launched the Government’s digital inclusion strategy in April 2014. BDUK is encouraging local authorities to work with Go ON UK to help people to get online.

Chi Onwurah: Last month the charity Becoming Visible arranged for my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and me to
	meet a group of profoundly deaf constituents. I was struck by how much they wanted to participate and engage and, in particular, to find jobs—but not to be paid less than the minimum wage—and also by how excluded they felt by the lack of British sign language accessibility for the web. I am sure that there is a technological solution. What technologies is the Minister examining that could help those with disabilities, especially the profoundly deaf, to get online?

Edward Vaizey: I share the hon. Lady’s concern. I have been encouraging the use of what is known as the video relay system, which enables people to talk to a British sign language interpreter online. I have written to the top 100 FTSE companies, but very few have replied, and I intend to follow that up soon.
	One of the things that held the programme back was a costing of £100 million, which I considered fanciful. When BT installed the system, the costing was between £15,000 and £20,000. The system is very cheap, and companies should install it. The Government should install it as well, and I am trying to encourage my colleagues to ensure that they do.

Representation of Women in the Media

Paul Blomfield: What steps he is taking to ensure better representation of women in the media.

Helen Grant: The Government are committed to improving equality of opportunity for women in the media industry. The Government are also helping women across all industries by reducing the cost of child care, addressing the gender pay gap, increasing flexible working, and introducing shared parental leave.

Paul Blomfield: I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I ask her to address another aspect, which is the sexualisation of women and girls in the media? That was raised as a serious concern with me during a recent community consultation. Does she agree that this representation of women and girls is affecting behaviour across society? If so, what is she doing about it and will she join me in backing the Good Night Out campaign, which is working with pubs, clubs, bars and other venues to end harassment on nights out?

Helen Grant: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This is an important area and the Government are taking a lead. Through our body confidence campaign we have been working with industry to develop positive and diverse representations of women and girls in the media and to tackle and get rid of outdated stereotypes. The women’s engagement programme is also working hard, through a series of round-table meetings, to deal with many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Music Venues (Noise)

Kerry McCarthy: What steps he is taking to protect music venues from closure as a result of noise complaints.

Edward Vaizey: The Government have recently reviewed their legislation and believe that the law as
	currently constituted strikes the appropriate balance between considering the needs of venues and managing the adverse effects that can come from noise.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for that response. He will know that many people are arguing for an agent of change law in this country, as there is in Australia. They do not believe that existing legislation protects venues from developers who are building around the venue then submitting noise complaints. The owner of The Fleece in Bristol says that
	“the reality of the current situation could not be further from the picture painted in the planning practice guidance”,
	and the venue’s representatives are back before the planning committee next Wednesday.
	The Minister will very soon be getting an invitation to Venues day on 9 December, which will be held just across the river on the south bank. May I urge him to attend that, where he will meet many venue owners who will explain to him just how difficult the situation is on the ground?

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Lady is a great champion of live music, so it does not surprise me that she is raising this issue, and I will certainly consider the invitation to Venues day. As far as The Fleece is concerned, I understand that Bristol city council has imposed some acoustic restrictions on planned developments around it. The agent of change principle has only recently been implemented in Australia. Some elements of it exist in our own planning policies, but I will certainly raise that with planning Ministers.

Kelvin Hopkins: I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about venues. Is not the real solution to the problem to have much more effective regulation of noise from existing venues—strict noise limiters and so on? The problem is not string quartets or small jazz groups; it is heavily amplified popular music. I know people enjoy that, but should it not be limited in volume?

Edward Vaizey: In effect, the hon. Gentleman’s question reveals the dilemma, because the hon. Member for Bristol East was raising the issue of new developments springing up and new residents complaining about a music venue that has been in operation for many years—the Ministry of Sound is the most high profile recent example. At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman says, residents will want to be able to sleep soundly in their beds at night. Squaring that circle is always the difficulty that councils and planning Ministers have to wrestle with.

Mobile Phone Coverage (Rural Areas)

John Howell: What recent assessment he has made of mobile phone coverage in rural areas.

Edward Vaizey: I am pleased to say that mobile coverage is going extremely well. We have the fastest roll-out of superfast broadband in the world and the fastest take-up—6 million customers are already using 4G and 73% of the country is covered.

John Howell: The Henley constituency still has big areas of no coverage. Would a system of national roaming be a simple way of improving coverage in rural areas?

Edward Vaizey: As my hon. Friend knows, we are looking at a system of national roaming. Ofcom has made it clear that it is technically possible, and we have every intention of proceeding with national roaming, unless and until the mobile operators can come up with proposals that will improve rural mobile coverage.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am sure the Minister is aware that we are rapidly approaching the point when every farmer in the country will have to complete all their forms online. He will doubtless have had many discussions with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about that. What, precisely, is the number of farmers who will not be able to access online services because they have neither mobile nor broadband coverage?

Edward Vaizey: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that our rural superfast broadband project is going extremely well, and we should have reached 90% of the country by the beginning of 2016, but broadband is already, in effect, universally available to 99% of the population.

Chloe Smith: The Minister received East Anglia’s digital divide proposal on rural mobile and broadband, including a request for Norwich to be made a super-connected city. Will he update East Anglia on his consideration of that?

Edward Vaizey: We had an extremely good meeting with my hon. Friend and her East Anglian colleagues, and we are looking carefully at the proposals they made. Norfolk, Suffolk and many other counties in East Anglia are great examples of counties that do not just sit back but take the lead and come up with interesting initiatives and proposals.

Frank Roy: The Minister will know that it is not just rural areas that suffer from poor mobile phone coverage. For example, mobile phone coverage is not available in many areas in the town of Wishaw. What assessment has been made of towns such as Wishaw?

Edward Vaizey: As I say, we continue to work with Ofcom to identify not-spots, but at the moment the mobile phone companies are undertaking a rapid roll-out of 4G technology. Originally the licences would have required only one operator to provide full 4G to 98% of premises by the end of 2017. We expect EE to have achieved that by the end of 2014 and the rest of the mobile operators to have achieved it by the end of 2015.

Andrew Turner: What has the Minister done to connect the final 5% on the Isle of Wight?

Edward Vaizey: I know that the Isle of Wight is benefiting from £6 million of funding and it should have reached 95% connectivity by next summer. We are undertaking pilots in 10 different areas to assess the costs of getting superfast broadband to the last 5% of the country.

Peter Aldous: Areas such as St. James South Elmham in my constituency face a triple whammy of very poor mobile coverage, an appalling landline
	service that is always being dug up and geographical challenges that mean we are towards the back of the queue for superfast broadband. Will the Minister provide initial encouragement, inducement and, if necessary, compulsion to network providers to ensure that communities such as St James South Elmham no longer have to put up with this intolerable service?

Edward Vaizey: The phrase “With friends like this” is beginning to enter my head. At the risk of sounding like a scratched record, may I say that we have a fantastic rural broadband roll-out programme? About £1.7 billion is being put in to ensure that, by the end of 2017, 95% of premises in the UK—the whole of the UK—will have superfast broadband speeds of 24 megabits. That is a fantastic achievement and I look forward to subsequent contributions from my hon. Friends to highlight the amazing success of this programme.

Mr Speaker: Be careful of what you wish for.

Coastal Communities (Economic Regeneration)

Damian Collins: What assessment he has made of the role of the arts and the creative industries in supporting economic regeneration in coastal communities.

Edward Vaizey: I am delighted to move on to talk about the role of the arts and creative industries in supporting economic regeneration, particularly in the Folkestone and Hythe constituency, where a combination of Government support and the extraordinary work of the philanthropist Roger de Haan has seen more than 200 creative businesses flourish in a town that hosts the amazing Folkestone triennial.

Damian Collins: I thank the Minister for his answer. I would like to extend an invitation to both him and the Secretary of State to visit the Folkestone triennial arts festival to see the creative-led regeneration of the old town of Folkestone, which, as he said, is creating hundreds of jobs and leading to hundreds of new businesses every year.

Edward Vaizey: I certainly intend to do that. I was in my hon. Friend’s constituency in August and, as I walked with him down the promenade, literally thousands and thousands of his constituents were lining the streets cheering him. I thought that that was one of the most impressive receptions for an MP that I had ever seen, and Prince Harry, who was standing next to me, felt the same thing.

Parthenon Sculptures

Andrew George: What his policy is on the UNESCO proposal for mediation with Greece on the Parthenon sculptures in the British Museum.

Helen Grant: The Government note that UNESCO stands ready to facilitate mediation discussions on the Parthenon sculptures. We will consider
	the proposal and respond in due course. We are clear that the sculptures are legally owned by the British museum, which continues to provide access for all.

Andrew George: I am sure that if the UK is confident in its position, it will willingly engage with UNESCO in the offer of mediation. Although some might delude themselves on this matter, the fact is that parading stolen booty in the otherwise excellent British museum brings shame on this country. Surely the United Kingdom now needs to engage constructively and graciously recognise that the Parthenon sculptures should return to Athens.

Helen Grant: We are engaging constructively. We will respond to the offer in due course. The suitability objectives and benefits of mediation need to be considered before that point, but I repeat that the sculptures are the property of the British museum, which provides access to all free of charge.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Minister be a bit more specific about when the constructive engagement will come to a conclusion? The point made by the hon. Gentleman was that those items were stolen from the people of Greece, and there are very strong feelings in Greece about that. Perhaps our relationship with Greece would be improved if we constructively engaged with it with a view to returning some, if not all, of these items.

Helen Grant: I do not accept that the items were stolen, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is constructive engagement between the UK and Greek Governments. The matter was discussed at the beginning of October at UNESCO headquarters in Paris.

Superfast Broadband

David Nuttall: What plans he has to provide superfast broadband to those areas not covered by existing policies.

Edward Vaizey: I am delighted to hear that question; I look forward to my hon. Friend’s constructive comments about the roll-out of the superfast broadband project, which has seen some £3.5 million invested in Greater Manchester. His point, though, is about the last 5%. As I have already mentioned, there is a £10 million fund and 10 pilot schemes to help us assess the costs of bringing broadband to the last 5%.

David Nuttall: The problem is that the more the progress on rolling out superfast broadband to the 95%, the greater the disappointment and disillusionment among the remaining 5%, such as among residents in Affetside and parts of Holcombe and Hawkshaw in my constituency. I urge my hon. Friend to work with other Ministers across Government and the private sector to do all that is possible to speed up the delivery of better broadband and ensure that the final 5% do not become the forgotten 5%.

Edward Vaizey: They are certainly not forgotten, which is why we are undertaking pilot projects. I am also pleased that in many rural areas the roll-out of superfast broadband is now ahead of schedule. I am certainly happy to look
	at the situation in Affetside and Holcombe where the cabinets are conversion-enabled. It might be that some of the premises are simply too far from the current cabinet.

Duncan Hames: What is the Minister doing to take advantage of technologies other than fixed-line solutions to extend superfast broadband to populations outside of the major cities?

Edward Vaizey: We have always taken a technologically neutral approach. Obviously, satellite is available throughout the UK, and we have 4G mobile broadband rolling out commercially as well. Indeed the key point about the pilot projects, which I keep banging on about in relation to the last 5%, is that they are experimenting precisely with new technologies to provide cost-effective means of getting to the most difficult premises.

Topical Questions

Simon Wright: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Vaizey: The Secretary of State is in India where he is banging the drum for British business, culture, sport and tourism. Today, he has been giving a speech on the importance of a free internet for the future prosperity of the UK, India and the world. He has also launched a new programme of sport and education for girls, supported museum partnerships between the UK and India and attended a memorial event to commemorate the contribution of Indian soldiers during the first world war. Here at home, his colleagues have also been busy, and we have confirmed our £90 million investment in a new model for English Heritage. In sport, I am pleased to say that all four home nations went undefeated in their European championship qualifying matches.

Simon Wright: I particularly welcome that last point. If the research commissioned by the Responsible Gambling Trust into fixed-odds betting terminals is inconclusive or fails to provide coherent conclusions about the impact of the £100 maximum stake, will the Minister proceed on a precautionary basis and cut the maximum stake to £2 per spin?

Edward Vaizey: It is certainly our intention to keep an open mind on this issue. The Government will consider all the relevant evidence fairly and openly and will act accordingly.

Nick Smith: Tickets for the 2015 rugby world cup are going for eye-watering amounts on the secondary market. The official top price for England-Wales tickets is £315, but viagogo is selling them today at £1,136. What actions are the Government taking to stop fans being ripped off on the secondary market for the rugby world cup?

Helen Grant: I am aware of those concerns, but I am very confident, having met Ticketmaster and seen its 10-point plan, that the tickets
	will get into the hands of rugby fans. I am sure that the event will be a great success and I ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of the fact that successive Governments and Select Committees have said that regulation should be a last resort.

Mr Speaker: I call Miss Anne McIntosh—not here.

David Mowat: There are manifest and clear benefits from the game of chess as an educational and sporting tool, but while other countries continue to develop the game, in the UK participation is collapsing, particularly in the state primary school sector. Will the Minister meet me and other members of the newly formed all-party parliamentary group on chess to discuss substantive and low-cost changes that we could make to help the sport?

Helen Grant: We do not recognise chess as a sport, as my hon. Friend knows, because it is not a physical activity, but I would be happy to meet him to discuss the current state of the game.

Clive Efford: It is now three years to the month since the Government published a response in which they said that they would set up expert working groups on the barriers to football fans’ owning football clubs. Yesterday, the Minister said that she has set up the expert working group—three years on. She went on to say that it will consider some of the consumer issues about pricing. I have the report in my hand and it clearly says that the expert group will look into issues to do with supporter ownership of football clubs, so the Minister seems to have rewritten the terms of reference. Can she tell us who is on the working group, when it will meet and whether the members of the group know that she has rewritten the terms of reference? Is it not actually the case that the Government have used the expert working group to avoid giving football fans a real voice in the running of their football clubs?

Helen Grant: I do not accept anything that the hon. Gentleman has just said. I am determined to set up this expert group of supporters, which is about to be launched. We have members, we have a chair, with whom I had a meeting very recently, and the hon. Gentleman will hear announcements very soon. The group itself will consider ownership, debt and all the various issues that are likely to be of concern to fans.

Fiona Bruce: Clonter Opera theatre in Congleton has produced highly professional productions for 40 years as well as educational events. Last month, I enjoyed an excellent production of Gounod’s “Faust”, which transferred to London. However, despite strong local support, the future of Clonter is now in question. Will the Minister meet me and Clonter to discuss how support can be obtained to ensure it continues to make its unique contribution to arts in the north for many years to come?

Edward Vaizey: I know that the opera company makes a fantastic contribution and has also received funding from the Arts Council, but I will certainly meet my hon. Friend to discuss its future.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that we should be very concerned about the early sexualisation of children through exposure to pornography? May I share with him the thoughts of my constituent, who, on getting a new free service for their television, found that their children had access to free pornographic sites? What can we do to protect children from that kind of exposure?

Edward Vaizey: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have worked with internet service providers to supply free filters that can be fitted to consumers’ internet connections. They are working to put together a £25 million a year campaign called Internet Matters, but we should certainly examine the point that he raises as well.

Mary Macleod: The all-party group for women in Parliament produced a report a few months ago in which it examined sexism in the media. Will my hon. Friend look into that issue and work with the Minister for Women and Equalities to determine what we can do to hold the media to account?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I am happy to do as she suggests.

Alex Cunningham: We are more likely to find high-stakes fixed odds betting terminals in deprived areas of urban constituencies such as mine than in the leafy towns of Suffolk, so it is betting shop staff in places such as Stockton and Billingham who will have to consider giving permission to punters who want to place stakes of greater than £50 a time. Will the Minister explain how the Government decided on the sum of £50, the criteria that they would have betting staff use when deciding whether to grant permission, and how the system will be monitored and enforced?

Helen Grant: There is a lot in that question, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the proposals I announced in April were measured and proportionate. They give more powers back to local authorities and, most importantly, more protection to consumers.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the Minister on the fact that England’s museums and galleries attracted almost 5.9 million visitors in August. That figure was up more than 10% on the year before and represented the highest monthly total ever recorded. To what does he attribute that success?

Edward Vaizey: Those record figures were partly thanks to this Government’s decision to maintain free admission to museums, and also down to the leadership of our national and regional museums shown by some incredible men and women.

Andy Sawford: After a remarkable 43-year career as a reporter at the Corby Telegraph, Helen O’Neill retires next week. Will the Minister join me in sending congratulations to her and in saying that she shows the very best that local journalism and newspapers can be, and how much they can contribute to our communities?

Edward Vaizey: I think that Helen O’Neill’s 43-year career in journalism is a testament to the fantastic contribution that local newspapers make to our democracy. I am pleased that I will be sitting down with the National Union of Journalists for a seminar on local newspapers because I, for one, want to do everything I can to ensure that they have a vibrant and brilliant future.

Jim McGovern: Unfortunately we ran out of time before I could ask Question 14, which was about the video games industry. The Minister is aware of how crucial that industry is to the economy of my home city of Dundee. What progress is being made on extending the three-year period for the skills investment fund?

Edward Vaizey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind that I often pray in aid Dundee as a brilliant example of a city that supports the video games industry. I am happy to tell him that the skills investment fund that we set up has put millions of pounds into skills training. Yesterday I attended the opening of the Industrial Light and Magic headquarters in London, which will employ 200 people in the visual effects industry, and we will certainly consider whether it is possible to extend the scheme.

Jim Shannon: Our competitors in shooting sports—rifle and shotgun disciplines—contributed some 20 medals at the Commonwealth games. The Minister will know that pistol shooting is restricted legally in the United Kingdom. What steps can she take to relax that restriction so that even more people can be introduced to pistol shooting and win more medals?

Helen Grant: I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss pistol shooting.

Jim Sheridan: The Secretary of State said in September that the terms of reference for the BBC review would be published “very shortly”. Will the Minister tell us what “very shortly” means, and whether the terms of reference will take account of the impact of evasion levels and collection costs on the BBC’s funding?

Edward Vaizey: Whitehall terms are often obscure. For example, it is well known that the Whitehall term “to be published in the spring” covers the period from February to November. However, “very shortly” means exactly what it says—we will publish the terms of reference very shortly. We will certainly take into account the hon. Gentleman’s point about the impact on the BBC.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Female Entrepreneurs

Karen Lumley: What recent progress she has made on encouraging women to set up their own businesses.

Fiona Bruce: What recent progress she has made on encouraging women to set up their own businesses.

Nicky Morgan: Women are central to our plans to create economic growth. We have introduced new measures to support those who want to start up or grow their business, for example through StartUp loans or the new enterprise allowance, both of which are seeing very good take-up by women. We have also appointed the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) as the Government’s women’s enterprise champion to advise on what more can be done to support women entrepreneurs.

Karen Lumley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that removing pointless red tape and regulation has helped business women such as my constituent Emma Sutor, whose vintage clothing business is going from strength to strength?

Nicky Morgan: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Emma Sutor on the success of her company, and the many women following suit and setting up their own businesses. As well as running companies, women such as Emma have an important part to play as inspirational role models for tomorrow’s entrepreneurs. I encourage other women to consider accessing our Government schemes. It is also right to point out that we are on track to meet the Prime Minister’s pledge to be the first Government in modern history to reduce the overall cost of domestic regulation on business, rather than increase it.

Fiona Bruce: Many women set up as freelancers in order to benefit from the flexibility that provides. However, a recent report has shown that there is a disincentive in the tax system for freelance entrepreneurs to invest in new skills and that, over time, that means the skills of the self-employed are not updated in line with those of the employed. Will the Minister agree to look into that, perhaps with Treasury colleagues, to see how that disincentive can be removed?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to my attention the “Going it Alone” report by Demos on the implications of the growth of self-employment. The Government recognise the importance of developing the skills of female entrepreneurs, something the Women’s Business Council has also highlighted to us. She will understand that it is not my role to write taxation policy, but I will be happy to discuss it further with Treasury colleagues.

Barry Sheerman: Has the Minister noticed that, possibly because men have not yet colonised it, so many superb women are coming through in crowdfunding and crowdsourcing, and will she congratulate them and encourage more women to use crowdfunding to set up their own businesses?

Nicky Morgan: In fact, I have noticed. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and would like to congratulate all the women who are setting up businesses in this country and obtaining funding, whether via crowdfunding or any other sources. It is worth pointing out that in
	2012 20% of our small and medium-sized entrepreneurs were either run by women or by a team that was over 50% female, which is an increase from 14% in 2008.

Philip Hollobone: The Minister will recognise the importance of the Federation of Small Businesses in encouraging women to come forward and become entrepreneurs, particularly the FSB breakfast clubs, such as the one in Kettering, which give women the opportunity and confidence to get plugged into local business networks.

Nicky Morgan: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about the importance of the support that organisations such as the FSB can give to anybody thinking about setting up a business. I would like to draw the attention of all entrepreneurs, but particularly female entrepreneurs, to a new web page for potential and existing female entrepreneurs on the Great Business website—greatbusiness.gov.uk.

Equal Pay

Andrew George: What steps she is taking to ensure equal pay in the workplace.

Jo Swinson: The gender pay gap is falling steadily over time, and the full-time pay gap has now been almost eliminated for women under the age of 40. We are promoting pay transparency through the Think, Act, Report initiative and encouraging girls and young women to consider a wider range of careers, including better-paid jobs in science, technology and engineering, through the Your Life campaign.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but how can we judge what progress is being made without the hard data? What can she do to ensure that employers, particularly larger employers—surely it is within their capacity—publish the data so that we can make those kinds of judgments?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend is right to point out that transparency is a really useful tool in being able to make progress on the pay gap. As I have said, with the Think, Act, Report initiative, to which more than 250 companies are now signed up, two thirds are now publishing more information on gender equality, and we are encouraging more and more to undertake equal pay audits. He might also be aware that Graziamagazine—I am sure that he is an avid reader—has been campaigning for further progress on pay transparency, particularly in relation to section 78 of the Equality Act 2010. I think that there will be a significant debate on that in the months running up to the election. As he will know, our party has signed up to that campaign, as I hope others will in future.

Chi Onwurah: As the Minister indicated, one of the reasons for the pay gap is the under-representation of women in high-paying careers such as IT. Wednesday was Ada Lovelace day, celebrating the world’s first computer scientist. In the intervening time, we have gone from 100% female to only 17% female in this area. What progress is the Minister making in changing that?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. I praise her for the work that she has done in highlighting the importance of women in engineering, science and technology careers. I mentioned the Your Life campaign. We are working alongside the different professional bodies within these industries to encourage more young women to study these subjects at school, because that is absolutely crucial if they are to be able to go on to study them at university and go into such careers. We are focusing particularly on significantly boosting the number of girls taking physics and maths A-level. This is work in progress—there is a lot more to do—but we have significant projects under way to deliver it.

Gloria De Piero: Equal pay for people with disabilities is a well-established right. If Lord Freud’s views on this matter do not represent the views of the Government, why is he still a Minister of the Government?

Jo Swinson: As I said in yesterday’s debate on the national minimum wage, great shock has been expressed in all parts of the House about Lord Freud’s remarks, which in no way reflect the opinion of the Government. It is therefore quite right that he has apologised in full for those remarks. It is right to set out on the record that people in all parts of the House believe that the minimum wage should be paid to anybody in work, whether they are male, female, disabled or not disabled. Whatever their characteristics, it is absolutely vital that that is the case.

Chris Bryant: The Church of England measure that we are going to consider in this House on Monday provides in clause 2 for an amendment to the Equality Act 2010 that says:
	“The office of diocesan or suffragan bishop is not a public office.”
	Why on earth are the Government allowing the Church of England to bring forward a measure that would carve it out of equality measures just at the time when it is finally allowing the ordination of women bishops?

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he is an avid campaigner on these issues. I think there is great joy about the new measures on women bishops that will come forward for debate on Monday. We need to look at what requirements are needed by religious organisations, as there may well be some cases where they need particular provisions to be made. I will happily look into the issue and write to him.

Public Institutions

Julian Smith: What steps she is taking to increase representation of women on the boards of public institutions.

Jo Swinson: The Government want half of new public appointments to be women by the end of this Parliament. The Cabinet Office has established the Centre for Public Appointments, which is supporting Departments in modernising recruitment practices, removing long-standing barriers, and emphasising
	skills and ability over previous experience. This has attracted a more diverse field of candidates to these important roles. The proportion of new female appointments stood at 39% last year, but there is clearly more to do.

Julian Smith: Does the Minister agree that as well as board appointments, it is vital that we have more women chief executives in public sector roles? Will she pay tribute to Ros Tolcher, who has become the chief executive of Harrogate hospital, which serves part of my constituency, taking to 100% the female leadership of NHS hospitals supporting Skipton and Ripon?

Jo Swinson: I certainly support the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the excellent senior women delivering public services in his local health care system. It is important that we have women on boards but also in executive roles. We have been making progress on this in the private sector, although there is clearly a lot more to be done there as well. The executive challenge has perhaps been a slightly more difficult nut to crack at the same speed at which we have been able to improve the numbers of women on boards more generally. The work we are doing to improve the pipeline support for women in the workplace is absolutely vital.

Geraint Davies: Yesterday Google and Facebook announced that instead of pursuing family-friendly practices, they were offering women a chance to freeze their eggs for 10 years, in essence saying, “If you want to get to board level, you should have frozen your eggs.” Is not this the worst case of institutional sexism, intimidating women into not having babies at the time of their own choosing? Will the Minister unequivocally condemn those companies?

Jo Swinson: It is up to individual companies to decide which policies they want to offer and, indeed, up to women employees whether they provide any kind of incentive or otherwise. What is important is making sure that there are genuine choices that women in the workplace can make so that they do not feel under any kind of pressure to delay starting a family, if that is what they want to do at a particular point in their career. The Government’s changes to make the procedures for maternity leave and shared parental leave much more modern are essential in making sure that women and men can make the parenting choices that work for them.

Violence against Women

Peter Aldous: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on tackling violence against women.

Simon Burns: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on tackling violence against women.

Mary Macleod: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on tackling violence against women.

Richard Graham: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on tackling violence against women.

Nicky Morgan: I have regular meetings on this important issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the latest as recently as yesterday. The Ministers for Women and Equalities also attend the quarterly Home Office inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls. The group will meet later this month to discuss progress against the action plan to end violence against women and girls.

Peter Aldous: On Tuesday, I raised with the Attorney-General my concern that support for two victims of domestic violence in my constituency had not been properly co-ordinated by the various services, leading to two very vulnerable women feeling extremely isolated and in turmoil. He has agreed to look into the cases and I would be grateful if the Minister did likewise so as to ensure that we have a seamless and co-ordinated support service for victims of violence.

Nicky Morgan: I agree with my hon. Friend on the need for a seamless support service for victims. We want victims to be absolutely at the heart of any cases that are brought. I cannot comment on individual cases, but, as my hon. Friend has said, he has raised the issue with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I hope he will supply him with details. I am happy to have a conversation with the Attorney-General about any points that can be raised and learned from such cases.

Simon Burns: Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the excellent work done by the three rape crisis centres in Essex? What further support do the Government plan to give to those who are the victims of sexual assault or rape in the UK?

Nicky Morgan: The new rape action plan will aid the Government’s drive to ensure that every report of rape is treated seriously and every victim given the help they deserve. I recently announced two new support centres, which will open in Grantham and Crawley, offering victims access to expert advice, support and counselling. That means that this Government have met their commitment to open 15 new support facilities across the country in this Parliament.

Mary Macleod: I recently held a London domestic abuse summit in Chiswick with the Home Secretary, and among the attendees were pupils from my local schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to involve schools in this message against domestic abuse?

Nicky Morgan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Education is at the heart of this Government’s approach to preventing violence against women and girls. It is a topic that schools may include in personal, social, health and economic education. To further support teachers we have set up an expert group on PSHE and we are also extending funding to the PSHE Association to
	provide specific guidance on consent. Our prevention campaign, “This is Abuse”, encourages teenagers to rethink views about rape, consent and violence in relationships.

Richard Graham: I welcome the Government’s consultation on widening the definition of domestic abuse. May I highlight in that context the creation of the Hollie Gazzard Trust, named after a young hairdresser murdered in Gloucester by her ex-boyfriend? The trust’s goal is to help save lives by stopping domestic abuse before it is too late. It now funds awareness sessions in secondary schools by the Gloucestershire Domestic Abuse Support Service. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Nick Gazzard on that and other trust initiatives, which might be cloned elsewhere in the country and spread a powerful message of hope out of tragedy?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work of the Hollie Gazzard Trust and congratulate Nick Gazzard on the work he and others have done to support it. I am aware of that tragic case and the devastating impact of coercive and controlling behaviour on its victims. In recognition of that, the Government definition of domestic abuse has been expanded to capture non-violent behaviour. We are now consulting on whether the law needs to be strengthened to keep pace with those developments and provide the best possible protection to victims.

Sharon Hodgson: The Minister spoke a lot over the conference season about the benefits of good quality sex and relationships education, which would go a long way towards tackling violence against women and girls. I agree with her: in SRE lessons at school all young people should be taught about healthy relationships, consent and respect for others. Unlike her, however, I am not the Education Secretary with the power to make that happen—not yet, anyway. Could we therefore see a little less conversation and a lot more action from the Minister on this topic?

Nicky Morgan: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has been listening to what I have said. She will, I hope, know from my previous track record that I am all in favour of action, not just words. I think that PSHE is very important, and that sex and relationships education is also very important. SRE is already required to be taught in maintained schools, and many academies already do it. As I have said, the important thing is to emphasise particularly the relationships aspect, which is why I support the Government’s “This is Abuse” campaign. I intend to continue to look at these areas further.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Diana Johnson.

Diana Johnson: I am very intrigued by the answer that the Minister has just given. Is she or is she not in favour of compulsory sex and relationships education? That is what I am really interested to know.

Nicky Morgan: I am very pleased that the hon. Lady is so interested in what I say. I think that sex and relationships education is extremely important. Many schools already do it well, and we can do more to help schools teach it even better.

Tata Steel

Iain Wright: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will make a statement on the proposal for Tata Steel to sell its long products division, and the resulting effect on the economy, manufacturing capability and employment in the United Kingdom.

Matthew Hancock: Tata Steel yesterday announced that it is in negotiations to sell its long products division based in Scunthorpe. At the same time, it has committed to invest further in its Port Talbot strip products business as it focuses its European business on strip products. I can understand that any announcement of this sort brings uncertainty, and we will do all we reasonably can to support the companies in ensuring a competitive future for the business.
	Hon. Members will know that, over the past four years, we have seen steel production restart in Redcar, we have introduced support for energy-intensive industries and steel production in the UK is higher now than it was in 2010. The steel industry has an important role to play in generating future economic growth. It underpins a number of key advanced manufacturing sectors, and sustains the livelihoods of many local communities.
	Decisions on company ownership are of course commercial matters for the companies involved. Nevertheless, we are working with the metals sector to develop further our metals industrial strategy. The Government believe that there is a sustainable long-term future for the steel industry in the UK.
	We have already taken the following actions. We are in contact with both companies to work to secure the future of the business. In India this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills met the global head of Tata, who re-affirmed his commitment to the British steel industry. The national infrastructure plan identifies a pipeline of more than 500 projects—costing about £250 billion to 2015—almost all of which need steel. That includes £1.4 billion in railway infrastructure, and 95% of the steel for the UK’s rail network will come from Tata Steel for the next five to 10 years. We have of course reduced energy costs, including through a £7 billion package for energy-intensive industries.
	After decades of decline, steel production in the UK is rising, and we will not rest in our determination to ensure that manufacturing, including steel, has a strong future in our country. I commend this statement to the House.

Iain Wright: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The House will appreciate the uncertainty and anxiety, as the Minister said, that yesterday’s announcement by Tata Steel will have caused for thousands of steelworkers, their families, affected communities and firms throughout the manufacturing supply chain.
	I want the Minister to respond on four issues. First, steel is a vital foundation for much of the UK’s manufacturing supply chain. The UK is the leading global player in industrial sectors such as aerospace, automotives, construction and energy. The production
	of steel in the UK underpins—the Minister himself used that word—much of that competitiveness. Britain’s largest steel manufacturer is preparing to sell half its capacity, so what contingencies have been put in place to maintain and enhance the skills and manufacturing capability in this industry, and to ensure that they are not permanently lost to the UK?
	Linked to that first point, what commitments have the Government obtained from the potential new owner on the maintenance of existing sites and industrial capability, the safeguarding of jobs, and additional investment? How binding are any of those commitments? Is the Minister concerned by the unions’ criticism of the absence of any consultation or communication with the work force so far, and what will the Government do about that?
	Thirdly, the sale affects sites not just in Scunthorpe, but throughout England and Scotland. What discussions have the Government had with their counterparts in Scotland to ensure that there is a co-ordinated and united response for the good of the steel industry in the United Kingdom?
	Finally, what will happen if the negotiations on the sale break down? It is clear that Tata wishes to divest itself of its long products division. What active role are the Government taking in the maintenance of the UK’s long products capability for the long term? What are the implications for the Government’s so-called “march of the makers”, which places high-value manufacturing at the heart of the economy? Should not an effective industrial strategy consider, identify and mitigate such risks? It is not good enough for the Government to say, “Let’s wait and see. This is a purely commercial consideration.” They need to show that they are prepared to act for the long-term good of the steel industry and UK manufacturing.

Matthew Hancock: First, may I say that there is a remarkable amount on which the three main parties agree? I will go through the hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that steel underpins, quite literally, a huge amount of manufacturing and construction activity in the UK. We have taken strides to strengthen the skills provision for manufacturing, not least by strengthening and expanding the apprenticeships programme, but also more broadly. Should there be changes in employment, we will be there to ensure, as we do everywhere in the country, that people have the opportunity to reskill. However, that is not the situation at the moment because this is a sale.
	On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the sale, we are consulting on strengthening the takeover code, as he knows, to ensure that the assurances that are given are binding. He talked about consultation and communication with the work force. Of course, the sale was announced yesterday, hence that is when the consultation and communication started. Although we are at an early stage, with the memorandum of understanding having just been announced, I would point out that the proposed purchaser brought a long products plant in Italy back into operation last year. We will, of course, be in constant communication with the proposed purchaser and Tata, as well as with the Scottish Government when devolved issues are concerned.
	Finally, on the big picture of the long-term future of the steel industry, the Government have overseen an increase not just in the amount of steel that is produced, but in employment in the steel industry. Far from the fall of 8 million tonnes of steel that we saw between 1997 and 2010, there has been an increase under this Government. Clear action is being taken and we will not rest. While we will support all those who may be affected by this decision, that is by no means the path down which we are going. We will keep working to expand manufacturing, as we have done over the past four years.

Ian Swales: This matter is not just about Scunthorpe. The Tata beam mill in my constituency makes beams of such high quality that they are in nine of the 10 tallest buildings in the world and the new World Trade Centre in New York. The Government must do everything they can to protect that capability. I thank the Minister for the steps the Government have taken on energy costs, but I ask him to look at the extra taxes that are still paid by energy-intensive industries in this country, which reduce their competitiveness and dwarf the extra levies on financial services.

Matthew Hancock: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in this area. The work that he did to restart steel production in Redcar was widely noticed. By getting on the plane around the world to bring investment into that plant, he bears personal responsibility for the restarting of that steel production. He makes an important point about the costs for energy-intensive industries. There is no point in having an economy like the one we had in the past, in which the costs that are laid on energy-intensive industries merely mean that the production moves to other jurisdictions, often with higher carbon emissions. We have taken £7 billion-worth of action, but I take on board his call for more.

Nicholas Dakin: My colleagues the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) share my concerns. They are not here today because they are hosting a visit of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) to northern Lincolnshire. The Minister says warm words, but we need actions. He mentions the pipeline of investment in steel products coming down the line, but how will the Government ensure through procurement that UK-made steel is used, not foreign steel?

Matthew Hancock: I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has done alongside his parliamentary neighbours. On getting UK content into UK projects, we must ensure, within EU competition rules, that the market is competitive; we cannot restrict procurement to UK projects. Within that, however, we can do everything to support UK suppliers into projects. For instance, the fact that 95% of the steel for the UK’s rail network is expected to come from Tata is important. We work on supply chain management to strengthen supply chains. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot close the borders for procurement, not least because we must ensure value for money for the taxpayer.

Julian Smith: May I direct the Minister to an article in The Economist that mentions Gary Klesch, head of the Klesch company, which is thinking of taking over this Tata unit? It states that:
	“Europe needs people like Mr Klesch…he brings discipline and fresh ideas.”
	Will the Minister reject the doom-mongering of the Labour party, and support Gary Klesch in making the most of this business?

Matthew Hancock: I and the Government will do everything that we reasonably can to secure the future of steel production. Being open to international investment means that there are other opportunities; Tata itself is an international investor. None the less, while I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s argument, we must be vigilant and careful to ensure that should any changes be made, we are ready to support the local community.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Minister has already said that he will talk to Gary Klesch and the Klesch group very soon, but will he also extend that courtesy to trade unions prior to meeting the Klesch group on the issue? Secondly, given that Tata has made this announcement about 50% of its European operations, which are primarily based in the UK, will the Minister also talk to Tata about its future developments in strip and tube? These types of decisions obviously lead to uncertainty, and we do not want to be here again in a few years’ time.

Matthew Hancock: I commend the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his question, and he is absolutely right. We are having those conversations—the Business Secretary is in India as we speak having those conversations with Tata. Tata also has big strip product operations in the Netherlands, but the other announcement it has made on investment in Port Talbot demonstrates its commitment to steel in the UK.

David Nuttall: Given that 2 million more people have been employed in the private sector since the last general election, does the Minister agree that that should be a source of optimism for anyone who loses their job that they will find a new one?

Matthew Hancock: Employment in steel manufacturing has gone up in the past few years, and unemployment in all the constituencies affected has come down. None the less, first and foremost my task is to ensure that we support the continuing development of steel manufacturing in the UK, and where there are changes to employment, that we support those who are affected. We will be vigilant in doing so.

Frank Roy: Be in no doubt that thousands of steelworkers, suppliers and contractors had a sleepless night last night and woke up this morning with great fear for the future. That is not me talking up a doomsday scenario; that is the reality of working in heavy industry, especially the steel industry in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister give me a more specific answer than he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright)? It is now more than 24 hours since the announcement. Have the Government contacted the Scottish Government? If not, why not, and when exactly will they do so?

Matthew Hancock: The Government are in constant contact with the Scottish Government. It is important to know what is devolved and what is not. Responding to changes in employment is a devolved matter, but support for the tax situation around energy-intensive
	industries is a reserved matter, so we have to make sure that each Government play their appropriate part.

Bob Blackman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that by lowering corporate taxes, ensuring that energy-intensive industries have preferential rates on energy prices, and creating a well-skilled work force and record numbers of apprenticeships, this Government are creating the potential for people to invest in industry in this country in the future?

Matthew Hancock: It is not by accident that there has been an increase in steel production in the UK in the past four years. It has been achieved by active involvement, not only through the national infrastructure plan and getting procurement right, but through making the tax environment better and ensuring that people can invest in this country with confidence for the long-term future. It has also been achieved by the personal effort of Members of both coalition parties to support steel in the UK.

Andrew McDonald: The Minister talks about the tone adopted by my colleagues and he is correct about that, but the tone from him and some of the comments from Government Members seem to be of an absolute acceptance that there will be job losses. I would be a little more impressed if, rather than the complacency we see from the Minister, the focus was on the preservation of the industry. If Gary Klesch did so well in Italy, then we should hear from Reuters, which says he has a record of swooping on ailing businesses in the United States—otherwise described as vulture capitalism, which I think is described as asset stripping in this country. What steps do the Government intend to take to ensure that that does not happen? There are 700 jobs at risk in our constituencies.

Matthew Hancock: We are absolutely clear that the potential of the future for steel making in the UK is bright. We have taken action to remove some of the barriers that were put in place by the previous Government. I therefore reject the overly partisan tone that has been taken at times, not least because of the amount of work that has been put in to make sure that we have a strong and bright potential future. That involves, for instance, not just the changes to the takeover code, but the substance of ensuring that it is more competitive to make steel in the UK.

Jeremy Lefroy: I am extremely concerned about this situation. Steel is absolutely vital for manufacturing businesses in my county of Staffordshire, such as JCB, Alstom, Jaguar Land Rover and many others. It is critical that this core capacity is retained. What work is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills doing to encourage British businesses to invest in the steel industry, given that the UK has one of the world’s premier centres of capital-raising in the City of London?

Matthew Hancock: There in the question lies part of the answer. We have great capacity for production in the UK of products that require steel. There is, therefore, a strong market. Through our industrial strategies, we make sure that we are taking a broad approach to bringing together suppliers in different industries and
	making sure that all of those opportunities are available. I return to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). We cannot close the borders, but what we can do is make sure that UK companies are in a good position to bid for those contracts.

Nia Griffith: This year has seen a dramatic increase in imports of steel products that are in direct competition with some of those made in the factories that are being transferred to Klesch. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing in response to the evidence we have that the quality and traceability of some of those products is not up to standard? What is he doing to support the work of the Certification Authority for Reinforcing Steels to ensure a level playing field for UK producers and to ensure safety in the construction industry?

Matthew Hancock: We have introduced an industrial strategy that allows us to take account of all these issues. In particular, the metals sector is developing a strategy that I am sure can consider all the points the hon. Lady makes.

Philip Hollobone: I am sure my constituents will be heartened to hear that both steel output and employment in steel manufacturing are higher than in 2010. Does the Minister assess the future for the UK steel industry as lying in specialised, high-valued-added steel products, in volume, lower-value-added production or in a combination of the two?

Matthew Hancock: Our job is to support the industry in whatever commercial decisions it makes. Arguably, the UK is better placed for the high-end, high-quality, specialised steel making, but let us remember that Redcar brought back high-volume steel making to the UK, so I do not want to cut off any of these options; I want to support the development of all.

Kevan Jones: Those working in the steel industry in the north-east and elsewhere, and their families, will be increasingly worried by the pathetic laissez-faire attitude of the Minister. They want to know what he will do to support and protect the steel industry and the livelihoods it sustains in this country. In particular, on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), what protection will he give those families to ensure, for example, that their pension funds will not be raided by vulture capitalists?

Matthew Hancock: When Labour was in office, there was no industrial strategy, but there is now, and clear action is being taken to support businesses, as demonstrated by the increase in outputs. In 1997, steel production was 18 million tonnes; it fell by almost a half to 10 million tonnes, but is now up to 12 million tonnes, which shows that we are determined to support the UK steel industry.

Stephen Doughty: The Minister will be aware that many of the concerns about Tata apply to other steel manufacturers in the UK, including Celsa in my constituency. Does he agree that we have a significant problem, in certain markets, with dumping from countries outside the EU, particularly Turkey and China, which is causing huge
	challenges for those companies, as well as creating the energy problems we have heard about? Will he and the Welsh Secretary meet me, Celsa and others to discuss the challenges and to consider what urgent action can be taken to deal with them?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to consider what more we can do. As he knows, the Government’s record in supporting the steel industry is strong, and if we can strengthen it further, following his suggestions, I am absolutely up for that.

Alex Cunningham: One thousand of my constituents are employed either directly in the steel industry or in related activities, so they are also very anxious about this matter. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), has talked about the asset-stripping record of the potential buyers of the site. How can I assure the workers that the Government will act to protect their jobs and not allow yet another international company to move Teesside jobs elsewhere?

Matthew Hancock: We can support the steel industry, as we have been doing, and ensure that, if there is a transition, we support those affected. The central point, however, is that the best way to secure the jobs that are increasingly available in Stockton and elsewhere in the country—[Interruption.] Unemployment has fallen by almost 30% in Stockton; the hon. Gentleman should look at our economic record in Stockton, because there and elsewhere, there are more jobs available, while, nationally, unemployment is falling at a record rate. [Interruption.] Opposition Members might want to
	close their minds to the success of the Government’s economic record, but their voters who have jobs and who can therefore provide for their families do not close their minds to it; their livelihoods are enhanced by the support we have given.

Tom Greatrex: I hope the Minister will return to the issue at hand, because the Clydebridge plant in my constituency has a proud industrial heritage, and could have—and should have—a great future as well. I want to take him back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) made about procurement. The Minister said that he would not rest, so may I suggest one direction his activities could take him in to ensure a proper, co-ordinated approach to procurement? The nationalists are not here, but recently we had the announcement of a Forth bridge crossing in Scotland, and initially it was announced that steel from China, not Scotland, would be used. Will his Department and the devolved Administration, where they are responsible, ensure that as far as possible UK steel is used for UK products?

Matthew Hancock: That is an absolutely clear and direct statement that we can support. Where possible—a qualifier that I notice the hon. Gentleman used—we should ensure that we support the use of UK products. Of course, transport is a devolved matter, so I cannot take personal responsibility for decisions about bridges in Scotland. Nevertheless, making sure that we support the UK steel industry is, as I have demonstrated, a matter we take extremely seriously. I would be keen to work with the hon. Gentleman on ensuring that we have a bright long-term future for UK steel and support all those involved in the steel industry, as we have to date.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

William Hague: The business for next week will be:
	Monday 20 October—Remaining stages of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill, followed by motion to approve a Church of England measure relating to women bishops.
	Tuesday 21 October—Second Reading of the Recall of MPs Bill.
	Wednesday 22 October—Opposition day (7th allotted day). There will be debates in the name of the Democratic Unionist party, including on the National Crime Agency.
	Thursday 23 October—Debate on a motion relating to repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, followed by debate on a motion relating to oral hormone pregnancy tests. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 24 October—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 27 October will include:
	Monday 27 October—Second Reading of the Taxation of Pensions Bill.
	Hon. Members will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the February recess at close of play on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 30 October will be:
	Thursday 30 October—Debate on the first joint report from the Committees on Arms Export Controls, “Scrutiny of Arms Exports and Arms Controls”.

Angela Eagle: May I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business and February’s recess date? I note, however, that he has not announced a date for this Government to stagger to their painful and inevitable end—or should I say dissolution?
	Six weeks ago, the House gave a Second Reading to the Affordable Homes Bill, which mitigates the cruel effects of the bedroom tax. A week later the House also gave a Second Reading to the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill. However, there is still no sign of the money resolutions that would enable either of them to progress to Committee, and the Tory wing of the Government are using parliamentary tricks in an attempt to subvert the will of the House. Will the Leader of the House now give us a commitment that he will respect the decisions of the House by bringing forward those two money resolutions ahead of any money resolution for the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which makes its predictable reappearance on Friday? Or is he so scared by the UKIP threat to his party’s election prospects that he is desperate to let the EU Bill jump the queue?
	Yesterday the Prime Minister failed to defend his own welfare Minister, Lord Freud, who claimed that disabled workers are not worth the full minimum wage
	and promised to go away and think about making them work for £2 an hour. This was not just an unfortunate slip of the tongue; it revealed the truth about this Government’s attitude to people with disabilities, and straight from the mouth of the Minister directly responsible. Why is he still in his job? Is it because too many in the Tory party secretly agree with him or because the Prime Minister is too weak to act? Will the Leader of the House arrange for the publication of all documents commissioned by the Government on the disabled and the minimum wage? As the welfare Minister has been mysteriously pulled from his scheduled appearance in the Lords today, will the Leader of the House ensure that he is available to make a statement in the other place sooner rather than later? The Minister for Employment said yesterday:
	“Those words will haunt him,”
	but is it not the truth that those words will haunt this Government until Lord Freud resigns?
	Senior Tories finally admitted this week that their toxic reorganisation of the NHS has been their biggest mistake in Government—and they are right. Patients are waiting longer in A and E; they are waiting longer to see their GP; and cancer waits are up. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised “no top-down reorganisation” and then embarked on one that has caused chaos and wasted £3 billion. According to senior Tories, as reported in The Times, the Prime Minister did “not understand” the reforms, but he forced them on the NHS anyway. Does the Leader of the House agree that these actions have done profound and intense damage to the NHS? Will he ask the Prime Minister to come to the House to explain why on earth he went ahead with it when he did not even understand it?
	I would like to welcome to the House the newly elected Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). She will be a doughty fighter for her constituents and I congratulate her on her victory. I would also like to welcome to an entirely different place in the Chamber the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell)—the new Member for Clacton who has the distinction of being the old Member for Clacton. He should be congratulated on managing to win an election as both the incumbent and the insurgent all at the same time. I note that we will have another by-election in just a few weeks’ time, so let me say to the Leader of the House that to lose one MP may be regarded as a misfortune, but to lose two is just reckless!
	The Conservative party conference in Birmingham might have got off to a bad start with yet another defection, but the swansong address of Leader of the House steadied the ship. May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his 26th consecutive appearance on his party’s conference platform? Some of us remember his Wilsonian- style address as a precocious 16-year-old. The Prime Minister was so moved by the right hon. Gentleman’s final oration to the party faithful that he has proclaimed him as the greatest living Yorkshireman. This has caused much consternation. Teenagers think it is Louis Tomlinson from One Direction; Guardian readers think it is Alan Bennett and I, of course, think it is my dad. Deep down, however, we all know the truth. He spent years batting on a sticky wicket; he stood strong as his side was collapsing around him; and he made a return to the top team after years in exile. It is not the Leader of the House; it is Geoff Boycott.

William Hague: Well, I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the two new hon. Members introduced to the House this week, although both are evidently a bit too busy to bother with the business of the House for next week. We of course congratulate all democratically elected Members. The hon. Lady has been very nice about my 26 years—indeed, 37 years—of speaking at Conservative party conferences. The truly greatest-living Yorkshireman would, of course, be too modest to mention the fact, so I shall say no more about that particular subject, but I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to it.
	The hon. Lady asked about private Members’ Bills. Money resolutions are being considered by the Government in the normal way. She said that the referendum Bill was making a predictable reappearance. It is predictable because of the efforts of Labour Members to prevent any referendum from being held, opposing the wishes of the people of this country to have an in/out referendum on Europe, which is what Conservative Members will continue to advocate.
	The hon. Lady asked about the remarks of Lord Freud. I feel passionately about this subject. I hope the hon. Lady will recall that I took the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 through this Parliament and I remain passionate about the rights of disabled people. It is right for Lord Freud to apologise unreservedly, which he has done. He said he was foolish to accept the premise of the question, which I think is right. It is right, too, however, to judge the Government on their record on these matters. Let me point out that overall spending on the main disability benefits will have been higher in every year to 2018 than it was in 2010, and that the number of disabled people in work is now 70,000 higher than it was at the end of the last Government. Those are the really important points. We have provided £400 million for carers to take short breaks from their caring responsibilities. Those are the things that really help disabled people, and I think Governments should be judged on their records. Lord Freud has apologised for his remarks. The hon. Lady asked whether the Prime Minister was too weak to dismiss him; I can assure her that the Prime Minister is never weak.
	Talking of leaders, I read in “Labour Uncut” that a move was being planned on the Opposition Front Bench—a move
	“so bold that it would reset the political clock… and demonstrate Ed Miliband’s leadership credentials.”
	We are talking really bold here: incredibly bold. The centrepiece was to be a reshuffle of those on the Opposition Front Bench—I am glad to see that the hon. Lady is still in her place—which, in turn, was to centre on the ejection of the shadow Chancellor from his position, the well-known “nightmare”, according to the Leader of the Opposition’s advisers. But now, following the Heywood and Middleton by-election, the Leader of the Opposition has apparently decided that he cannot carry out the planned reshuffle; so he is not even bold enough to carry out his own bold plan to be bold. It is no wonder that the Opposition are so riven with speculation about the position of their leader.
	The hon. Lady asked about the national health service. The number of doctors and nurses is now higher than it was at any point under the last Labour Government. There are fewer patients waiting longer than 26 or
	52 weeks than there were under Labour, and there have been many other achievements, including a 98% reduction in mixed-sex accommodation, which is something that the last Government never achieved.
	I noticed that the hon. Lady did not mention the deficit. We knew that the Leader of the Opposition had forgotten the deficit, but we did not know about the creeping amnesia among Opposition Members. Today, we offer a cheer to the first Opposition Member who mentions the deficit, and who remembers the need to tackle the deficit. While they are at it, the Opposition might also remember the economic news of the last two weeks. We have seen the largest annual fall in unemployment in history, the International Monetary Fund confirming that Britain is the fastest-growing economy in the G7, inflation remaining low, and the state pension rising by £75 more than inflation. None of those things ever happened under the Labour Government.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Leader of the House is fully aware that there is one problem in this country that we do need to debate, and that is coastal erosion. In my constituency, which has a vast amount of coastline, we have the Environment Agency, the Crown, national Government, local government—both district and county—and European funding, but no one has taken responsibility for co-ordination. We have a serious situation for which no one has taken responsibility. May we have some time in this place to discuss a problem that affects constituencies all along the coastline of the United Kingdom, but which we are not addressing?

William Hague: That is a very important issue, and I know that it is important in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The whole issue of flood prevention and, specifically, coastal erosion is of enormous importance, particularly in view of the weather events that have taken place in this country over the last few years. As he says, in many parts of the country there are overlapping responsibilities. My right hon. Friends who are responsible for these matters have ensured that investment in flood defences in general has been increasing in comparison with investment under the last Government. However, I think that my hon. Friend is well equipped to pursue this topic in, for instance, a Backbench Business debate.

Barry Sheerman: I do not want to feel ashamed about the House, and I very rarely do, so will the Leader of the House assure me that we can have an urgent, full debate about the dreadful disease that is sweeping across Africa, the Ebola virus? The House has heard a statement, but we have not had a major debate. We owe Africa. Our forebears did dreadful things in Africa—slavery, and much else. We ought to take the matter seriously, but we are not acting fast enough to stop this dreadful disease.

William Hague: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the extreme importance of this issue. As he knows, the Secretary of State for Health made a statement in the House on Monday, and I have no doubt that Ministers will want to keep the House fully up date by means of statements and, if necessary, debates.
	The hon. Gentleman talked, rightly, about our responsibilities to Africa. Let me reassure him. This country is now making an enormous contribution, a bigger contribution than any other European country, in sending 750 troops to Sierra Leone, in the work that
	we are doing to set up treatment and medical training centres there, and in the £125 million of assistance that we are providing. We are leading the way internationally in assistance to Africa: the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt about that.

Keith Simpson: Will the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war report this side of the general election, or will it be like the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Dickens—something we will expect in about 50 years’ time?

William Hague: We always expect a literary reference from my hon. Friend. I am not in control of the timing of the report’s release, although Ministers certainly hope it will be available in the not too distant future. My hon. Friend will recall that in 2006 I was moving motions from the Opposition Benches calling for such an inquiry that were resisted for two years.

Chris Bryant: No, you backed the nationalist motion; you didn’t move it.

William Hague: I supported the Welsh nationalists and they often supported me, but Labour opposed setting up an inquiry. Had it agreed to it, the inquiry would have reported long ago. I certainly hope it reports before the general election, but I am not in control of that.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Last week we had the dreadful announcement that JTI Gallaher intends to close its Ballymena Lisnafillan plant, with the loss of 900 jobs—£60 million gone from the local wage economy and a further £100 million in associated industries. It marks the end of all manufacturing of tobacco products in the United Kingdom. Those jobs are equivalent to 10,000 jobs on the mainland, but the Business Secretary has not bothered to come to this Chamber to make any statement on that devastating loss, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not bothered to come to the Dispatch Box and speak about that loss, either. The sense of hurt and the sense that there has been a turning away from even caring about those jobs is palpable. Will we now have a statement?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman speaks up very powerfully for his constituency, and understandably so. I will certainly draw the attention of the Ministers concerned to the remarks he has made in the House today, but I see that he has secured an Adjournment debate on this on Monday 27 October, to which, of course, a Minister will reply, so he will be able to set out the case more fully then.

Tessa Munt: When I used to travel to Africa my passport was date-stamped with a visa on entry and date-stamped again on exiting the country. To assist in tracking those at risk of spreading Ebola—particularly transit passengers and those with complex travel arrangements—will the Leader of the House suggest that the relevant Ministers speak to the Governments of the affected countries and ensure they return to a rigorous system of date-stamping the passports of those leaving the country at airports and ports? It
	would be simple and inexpensive, and we could require carriers to police the system so as to minimise the effects of any corruption.

William Hague: I will draw my hon. Friend’s point to the attention of my colleagues. She will be aware that Border Force officers will determine the travel history of passengers who have recently travelled from Liberia, Guinea or Sierra Leone at passport control, and they can ask additional questions, and they can, of course, examine passports as well. All of that will be done, and is being done already. No system is completely foolproof and there are, of course, passengers who use e-gates and there are some with more than one passport, and passport stamps are not always legible. I can think of many problems with this, therefore, but we should not dismiss any constructive ideas, and I will make sure my hon. Friend’s idea is relayed to my colleagues.

Sandra Osborne: Earlier in the week Members on both sides of the House voted by a huge majority in favour of UK recognition of Palestine as a state. What is the point of these Backbench Business debates if the Government simply pay lip service to them?

William Hague: I do not think anybody taking part in the debate was under the impression that it was binding on the Government, but the House of Commons certainly passed a resolution and had a full debate. As the hon. Lady knows, it is our policy to recognise a Palestinian state at a moment when it can make a contribution to peace, including through a two-state solution and the creation of a viable sovereign Palestinian state. That remains the position of Her Majesty’s Government.

Neil Carmichael: With economic growth continuing as it is, one area we need to think about is logistics. Gloucestershire has a shortage of lorry drivers, so may we have a debate to promote lorry driving as a career for young people?

William Hague: My hon. Friend might well want to promote a debate himself, which he can do through all the normal means. He is right about the implications of economic growth and the opportunities in the haulage industry. As he knows, we have seen 1.8 million apprenticeships start under this Government in the past four and half years, which is a dramatic increase. That can benefit all industries, but it is open to him to pursue the debate he calls for.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I return to the theme of Yorkshiremen. The Leader of the House will recall that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government sent PricewaterhouseCoopers to examine the audits and accounts of Tower Hamlets council some months ago. Is there any indication from the Department for Communities and Local Government that we can expect a statement any time soon?

William Hague: I have not had any request from DCLG about making a statement in the House, but I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman raising the issue and
	asking for an update. I will convey that to my ministerial colleagues, including that great Yorkshireman who presides over the Department.

George Young: The Leader of the House has announced that on Tuesday we will debate the recall Bill. Looking at the Order Paper I can see that there is a motion for Second Reading and a money resolution but no programme motion. Is it his intention to table a programme motion between now and Tuesday so that when we debate the Second Reading we can pace ourselves for the Committee stage?

William Hague: It is my intention that there will be a programme motion, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing attention to that point. It will be tabled in good time for the debate, so that right hon. and hon. Members can indeed pace themselves accordingly.

Jim Cunningham: The Leader of the House announced earlier a debate on oral hormone pregnancy drugs, which were introduced in the 1960s and 1970s, causing babies to be born with severe deformities. Are the Government, or is the Minister who is to take part in a debate, prepared to make an announcement about either compensation or a proper investigation?

William Hague: Of course the point of the debate is to enable these issues to be raised, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will seek to take part in it and to raise them. There are also questions to the Secretary of State for Health on Tuesday, so there are other opportunities for hon. Members to raise that issue and I believe it is Health Ministers who have to provide the definitive reply.

Alan Duncan: Can the most modest living Yorkshireman confirm, for the reassurance of the House, that there will be no change in the governance of this House, either on the Clerks side or for the building, until such time as the Select Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has reported to us?

William Hague: The right hon. Member for Blackburn happens to be in the Chamber at the moment. The motion to appoint the rest of the Governance Committee that will serve with him—as the House has agreed—is on today’s Order Paper. The House of Commons Commission will, of course, have to make sure that the temporary arrangements for the governance of the House are sufficiently robust, but every opportunity must remain fully to respect the wishes of the House and nothing should be done to pre-judge the outcome of the Committee,

Chris Bryant: I was going to ask the Leader of the House why the welcome Church of England Measure that we will debate on Monday allowing the ordination of women bishops, to which he referred, includes a clause, clause 2, that would carve the Church of England out of the Equality Act—a new amendment to that Act. I suspect he does not know the answer, so I shall ask him this instead: when will he table the money
	resolution for the Affordable Homes Bill? That was a point from the shadow Leader of the House to which he forgot to reply.

William Hague: I absolutely did not forget to reply to it, although I have noticed that all Opposition Members have still forgotten to mention the deficit. The amnesia has spread almost to the entire Labour party. I said that the Government are considering the money resolutions, and of course they will continue to do so in the normal way.

Chris Bryant: That is not an answer.

William Hague: I am not setting a date. I do not have a date for tabling money resolutions, which is the answer to the question. Therefore, that answer should be sufficient for the hon. Gentleman.

Jason McCartney: With our armed forces now serving in the skies over Iraq, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a good time to look again at the introduction of a national defence medal to give proper recognition to our nation’s military veterans?

William Hague: It is a good time to remember what the Royal Air Force and others do on our behalf, and we debated that in this House at the end of September. The full merits of the specific proposal to introduce a national defence medal was considered at length by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Declarations and Medals, which concluded that a strong enough case had not been made at this time for a national defence medal, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will continue to advocate it.

Tom Blenkinsop: Going back to the urgent question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), the Minister’s response left a few doubts in my mind about his appreciation of the situation. He talked about Tata going forward with UK rail contracts, but that would not be the case if Klesch took ownership of the Scunthorpe works. That would affect contract workers not just in Skinningrove in my constituency but in Redcar and Beam Mill. They are very much concerned about their futures under the potential new ownership. Can we have further clarification from the Government that they will be talking to trade union representatives from all sites before they meet Klesch, because that is of the utmost importance?

William Hague: I do not think that I can expand on what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in half an hour in this House. He answered many questions, including from the hon. Gentleman. I cannot add to what he has said, but he did stress the importance that the Government attach to the matter and indeed to the future of steel production overall. He will continue to keep the House up to date, and I am sure that he will be touch with hon. Members whose constituencies are affected.

Andrew Bridgen: I feel compelled once again to raise the matter of foreign lecturers working in Italian universities, known collectively as lettori, who have been discriminated against for
	decades on the basis of nationality. My right hon. Friend will know of this issue from his former role. He will also know that despite various assurances from the Italian Government that this issue will be resolved, nothing has happened. They promised to intervene in July but that did not materialise. May we have a statement from the Government on what further measures they can take to persuade the Italian Government to stop this practice of discrimination, which is in breach of all European treaties.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to continue to raise this issue. The Government have repeatedly raised their concerns. I did so as Foreign Secretary with Italian Ministers and with the Italian ambassador. Senior officials and Ministers continue to raise it. Our ambassador in Rome is seeking a further meeting with the Italian Education Minister and the head of the universities department to discuss the next steps. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will want to keep my hon. Friend up to date on this, as he has done in the past.

Mark Lazarowicz: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his previous role of the case of Mohammad Asghar, a 70-year-old man from Edinburgh who was sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. Recently, Mr Asghar was severely injured in prison after being shot by a policeman. The Scottish Government have now indicated that they might be prepared to agree to a prisoner transfer, which could be a way forward. Will the Government listen sympathetically to that proposal and arrange for a Minister to issue an oral or a written statement to give us an update on the case?

William Hague: I do recall that very disturbing case, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise it in the House and draw our attention to it again. I will have to refer his question to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and ask them to respond to him and to look at the idea that he has just promoted.

Oliver Colvile: The Government passed the Localism Act more than two years ago and Plymouth city council, which is controlled by the Labour party, has identified Collins park tennis courts as surplus to requirements and might well seek to build on them. It claims that it has not made a decision, but has published a planning brief. Please may we have a debate on the progress that local communities and neighbourhoods have made in protecting green inner-city areas such as mine in Plymouth?

William Hague: I think a debate on these issues would be most welcome to illustrate the opportunities that are now open. The Localism Act 2011 gives communities the opportunity to list valuable local assets and so far some 1,500 assets of community value have been listed. Green spaces are the second most popular listing, along with parks, village greens, open land and even, in one case, a mountain. I encourage my hon. Friend to pursue a debate on these matters.

Mr Speaker: Of course, we cannot get involved in individual planning applications, but I hope that I can be forgiven for saying that we need more tennis courts in this country and not fewer. That is a matter about which I feel very strongly, as does the Lawn Tennis Association and a great many other people besides.

Diana Johnson: May I agree with the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for a debate on Ebola? The Health Secretary made a statement on Monday about Ebola and the targeted screening at Heathrow, Gatwick and Eurostar, but he did not refer to ports such as Hull, which are busy entry points and targets for illegal immigration. Would it be possible to have a debate on what more needs to be done to protect all our ports of entry?

William Hague: The Government are looking at these issues constantly. As the Health Secretary mentioned on Monday, Cobra meets regularly and senior Ministers across government are giving their full attention to the issue. Of course, our efforts are concentrated on those points that have been highlighted so far because of the volume of passengers from the affected areas that might come through them, but the hon. Lady makes an understandable point about ports as well as airports. With such a dramatic and threatening issue, there will need to be regular updates to the House. I do not know whether that will next take the form of a statement or a further debate, but we will certainly bear her representations in mind.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on the ease with which foreign criminals can enter this country, particularly from the EU? Some very tragic cases have brought the matter into sharp focus in recent weeks. Hopefully, during the debate the House can resolve to start taking the DNA and fingerprints of all those who come from abroad into this country at the point of entry, which could then be linked to a criminal record, prevent them from returning after being deported and enable us to ensure that they are who they say they are and are not travelling on a false passport or using false papers. Surely taking DNA and fingerprints is a small price to pay for foreigners who want to enter our great country so that we can better protect the people who are already here.

William Hague: My hon. Friend, like many people in the country, feels very strongly about foreign criminals and crimes committed in this country. On a related issue, as he knows the Government are making intensified efforts to ensure that foreign national offenders who are in our prisons are returned to their country of origin. These are important issues. I cannot promise off the cuff this morning completely to change all our border arrangements, but he makes an important point about the importance of this issue and it is open to him to pursue debates on it, too.

Tom Greatrex: In this House yesterday, Christian Aid held an event to highlight the impact of climate change in some of the poorest countries of the world—I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) was able to attend. There was due to be a
	representative from Malawi at the event. As the Leader of the House will know, Malawi is one of the poorest countries in Africa and one of the most reliant on agriculture. However, the representative was unable to secure a visa and, sadly, that is not an isolated incident. Huge numbers of teachers, charity workers and people working with churches have been unable to fulfil long-standing partnership engagements in my constituency and across the UK because of the move to a cashless system via Pretoria for applications for visas from Malawi. I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that international credit cards are simply not available to almost everybody in Malawi, so they have real trouble in accessing the system. May we have a statement or a debate from the Home Office on ensuring that the visa system is fair and equitable for people wishing to come to the UK for entirely legitimate reasons?

William Hague: I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s point to my Home Office colleagues, who have to ensure that our visa system is not only rigorous but efficient—certain changes have been made to bring that about. He makes a point that we should examine, however, so I shall refer it to my Home Office colleagues.

Caroline Dinenage: For 30 years, Abbey Homes has been sitting on the Stokesmead site in my constituency. It has been unable to develop the site, yet is unwilling to sell it to the borough council or indeed to local residents, who would like the site to be used as a village green. May we have a debate on such land banking, which does nothing to benefit our local communities?

William Hague: Such issues create strong feelings in local communities, and my hon. Friend always speaks up strongly for her local community. As has been the case with other matters raised by hon. Members, it is open to her to seek an Adjournment debate or a Back-Bench business debate, and I encourage her to do so.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Leader of the House said that there would be a cheer for the first Opposition Member who mentioned the deficit, so I thought that I would take him up on the offer—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. There is indeed a serious deficit growing in the earning capacity of many in my constituency who work in the construction trade. They previously would have been on the books of construction companies, but now find that they are subbed out to subcontractors, which sub out to agencies. The agencies take these people on to their books, but they are told that as they are self-employed, they must contribute towards annual holiday pay through deductions and employer’s national insurance contributions. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on bogus self-employment so that we can deal with the deficit in these people’s earnings.

William Hague: I am not sure that that counts as mentioning the deficit—we are running out of time to get such a mention—but of course the hon. Gentleman raises an issue of importance to his constituents. It is open to him to try to secure a debate on such self-employment and the things that might be happening to people that were not intended, so I encourage him to pursue all the normal channels to achieve that.

Ian Swales: Devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and London has been accompanied by electoral reform. May I ask, as one Yorkshireman to another, for a debate on the type of electoral reform that should accompany any possible devolution in England?

William Hague: My hon. Friend may recall that we had quite a big debate three years ago called a national referendum, in which the entire country took part. Many millions of people voted and the result was emphatic. If a 55% result in Scotland is meant to be for a generation or a lifetime, which I hope that it is, a 67% result on electoral reform—I think that that was the outcome—might also last for a generation or a lifetime.

Robert Halfon: May we have an urgent debate and a statement about the application of existing laws on illegal Traveller encampments? Harlow has been under siege, with illegal encampments all over the town during the past year resulting in clean-up costs to Harlow taxpayers of £41,000. More than 1,700 residents have signed my petition calling for action. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Home Secretary to contact the chief constable of Essex and ask for a zero-tolerance approach to help to put an end to this intolerable situation?

William Hague: This is a serious issue, and not only in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Operational decisions on the use of police powers are, of course, a matter for chief constables, as must be the case, but I will bring the issues he raises to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend and others might also want to send representations to the Department for Communities and Local Government because it is consulting on a series of changes to planning policy for Traveller sites, including with regard to unauthorised development.

Marcus Jones: May we have an urgent statement on safety between junctions 1 and 4 of the M6? Many serious accidents take place on that part of the motorway, and its closure on numerous occasions has caused gridlock in my constituency as people have taken to A and B roads to get to the rest of the motorway network.

William Hague: On Thursday next week there will be questions to the Secretary of State for Transport, so my hon. Friend will have a chance to raise that issue with Transport Ministers then. The Highways Agency continually monitors the safety of the network, and the schemes that are being pursued between junctions 2 and 3 have come from the safety monitoring, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will wish to continue to pursue the matter with Transport Ministers.

Bob Blackman: Yesterday, Mr Speaker, you, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and a veritable multitude of right hon. and hon. Members attended our annual Diwali celebration, which I had the privilege to co-host with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that we had a debate in the House on the tremendous contribution that is made
	to Britain by British Hindus? Will he join me in wishing Hindus, Sikhs and Jains a very happy, peaceful, prosperous and healthy new year?

William Hague: Yes, I absolutely join my hon. Friend in wishing Hindus, Sikhs and Jains a healthy and prosperous new year. I enjoyed the event enormously, as I am sure you did, Mr Speaker, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for ensuring its efficient organisation—a tremendously enthusiastic event which reminded us of the immense contribution to this country of all the people represented and all their families and friends. I am not sure we need a debate as I do not think we would disagree about that, but my hon. Friend has done the House a service in reminding us of this.

John Hemming: Yardleys school in my constituency has been closed for three weeks as a result of asbestos contamination from the site next door, where there was a fire in a warehouse. It is an academy school on a private finance initiative site with the local authority as a partner and it is unclear who is responsible for declaring and ensuring that the site is safe. May we have a debate on patterns of responsibility for schools so that we can ensure that the interests of the children are put first and representatives of the school are involved in meetings about the safety of the school?

William Hague: Well, we can have a debate if my hon. Friend pursues a request in the normal way. This is a matter for Birmingham city council and the school to resolve, but I will draw the attention of my colleagues at the Department for Education to the fact that he has raised the matter, and it is open to him to pursue a debate on it.

David Nuttall: May we please have a debate on the method of electing police and crime commissioners, given the astonishing news that the Liberal Democrats were apparently unable to find a single person willing to stand as their candidate in the present by-election for a new PCC in south Yorkshire, despite the fact that that area contains the Sheffield, Hallam constituency represented by their own party leader? We can then debate changing the system of electing PCCs to the tried and trusted first-past-the-post method, which people understand and which might help increase voter confidence and turnout.

William Hague: It may be too early to change the voting system for something that was established only a few years ago, and the alternative vote system used in those elections predates the referendum that I mentioned a moment ago. I am not sure whether the absence of a Liberal Democrat candidate in south Yorkshire will make a huge difference to the outcome of the election, whatever it is going to be in south Yorkshire, although some of my hon. Friends may disagree with me on that. It may not make a vast difference. [Interruption.] I know I am in government with them but they do not mind being teased now and again—at least, I enjoy
	teasing them, whether they mind it or not. I am sure that in due course we will have to look at the voting system for these elections.

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. Friend was quite right to mention one of the most significant political and economic developments that has affected our country in the past 100 years—namely, the largest annual fall in unemployment. This is a hugely significant fact. I am amazed that much more is not being made of it by our national news and media outlets. In Kettering, unemployment has fallen from 2,088 when this Government came to power in May 2010 to 1,275—a fall of 813 or 39%. May we have a full day’s debate on the Floor of the main Chamber to discuss this hugely significant issue?

William Hague: There is a good case to be made for that: record levels of people are now in work; there are more people in private sector employment than ever before; we have seen the largest annual fall in unemployment on record; unemployment is down by 538,000 since the election; and we have seen the largest fall in unemployment in the G7. It is a remarkable record. It shows that the benefits of pursuing a long-term economic plan will be there. There is quite a lot of legislation approaching us at the moment, which will make it difficult to have a full day’s debate, but I think that my hon. Friend makes a good case.

Julian Smith: The transatlantic trade and investment partnership has the potential to bring huge opportunities for British businesses to trade more easily with our biggest trading partner. May we have a statement from the Government to bang the drum for the agreement, update the House on where we are with it and nail some of the dodgy myths that have been put about in recent weeks?

William Hague: A lot of myths have been put about, including the suggestion that it would somehow endanger public services, and it is important to demolish those myths. There is an opportunity for another major step forward in free trade that could raise the prosperity of all nations. Although I cannot offer an immediate statement or debate, I can tell my hon. Friend that hard work is being done on this in the Government, the European Union and the United States. When there are important developments, I know that my ministerial colleagues will want to update the House.

Jeremy Lefroy: Returning to the question of Ebola, may we have a statement on direct flights between the UK and Sierra Leone? This week the last remaining direct commercial flight was stopped. I understand the reasons for that, but I point out that, as a result, people travelling between Sierra Leone and the UK are coming via transit points, which makes them more difficult to identify. I have been approached by British businesses and Sierra Leoneans from the diaspora living in the UK who think it would be much better to have arrangements for direct commercial or charter flights between the UK and Sierra Leone that could be properly monitored at both ends and enable them to go to and from their country.

William Hague: The Health Secretary set out for the House on Monday all the precautions we are taking. My hon. Friend is right that there are now no direct flights between the United Kingdom and the countries most affected by Ebola—Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. Of course there is a balance to be struck in these matters, and it is important for our aid workers to be able to access the region and so on, but I cannot offer him the hope that direct flights will be restored at the moment. There is a case to be made for that, which he has done, but at the moment there would also be great risks. However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is heavily involved in these matters, is here and has heard his remarks.

ISIL: Iraq and Syria

Philip Hammond: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Iraq and Syria. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of Alan Henning. Mr Henning arrived in Syria armed only with kindness and compassion. His appalling murder, like that of David Haines, the two American hostages and many thousands of others, has revealed the true, barbaric face of ISIL.
	The scale and unity of the international response to the challenge of ISIL is impressive. It involves Muslim countries of the region and the wider international community. The UK is proud to play its part. Working closely with our allies, under a US lead, we have a clear strategy to take the fight to ISIL—a strategy with military, political and wider counter-terrorism components; a strategy that we recognise, at least in parts, will need to be sustained over the long term. We are under no illusion as to the severity of the challenge to regional stability and to our homeland security.
	At the heart of our strategy is the political strand. ISIL will not be overcome until Iraq and Syria have inclusive Governments capable of marginalising its appeal and mounting a sustained and effective response on the ground to the military and ideological threat it poses.
	Let me first address the situation in Iraq, which I visited this week. I did so to show solidarity with the Iraqi people and the new Government of Prime Minister al-Abadi, to tell them that they do not stand alone in confronting the ISIL threat, and to encourage them as they put together an inclusive Government of national reconciliation. I recognise the concern in this House—shared, I have to say, by many in the region—as to the difficulties of achieving this more inclusive approach. I recognise too the enormous challenges that Prime Minister al-Abadi faces and the understandable scepticism as to his ability to deliver a genuinely different approach from his predecessor. At the same time, however, I am impressed by the commitment of all three leaderships—Shi’a, Sunni and Kurd—to ensure that this time is, and must be, different. All agreed that this is effectively Iraq’s last chance as a nation state.
	In talks with Prime Minister al-Abadi, Vice-President Nujaifi, and Foreign Minister Jaafari, each of them reaffirmed their understanding of the need for, and their personal commitment to, a more inclusive approach; decentralisation of power to Iraq’s communities; and equitable sharing of Iraq’s natural resource wealth. I assured Prime Minister al-Abadi that Britain will do all it can to support reform and reconciliation. He, in turn, assured me that he expects to complete the formation of his Government by appointing defence and interior Ministers over the next few days.
	In Erbil, I met the Kurdistan Regional Government’s President Massoud Barzani, Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, and other Ministers. They likewise assured me of their commitment to work with Prime Minister al-Abadi, and said that Kurdish Ministers would be taking up their positions in the Baghdad Government this week. There was considerable optimism, both in Erbil and Baghdad, that this will allow a much-needed
	deal to resolve the long-standing issues between the Iraqi Government and the KRG, including oil exports and revenue-sharing.
	Perhaps unsurprisingly given the history, there is a deep, and mutual, lack of trust among the different communities in Iraq and between Baghdad and some of its neighbours in the region. However, it is now vital that all parties, having looked at the alternatives, put the past behind them and have the courage to build bridges to each other—in particular, to appeal to the Sunni populations, who are living under, and in some cases acquiescing in, ISIL’s brutal reign, and who must be brought back into the political fold if ISIL is to be defeated in Iraq. For our part, we will do all that is in our power to encourage the different communities and countries involved to reach out to each other in rebuilding an Iraq capable of rolling back ISIL and the poisonous ideology it represents.
	Turning to the military dimension of our engagement in Iraq, Britain, alongside the United States, France, Australia and others, has assumed a key role in carrying out air strikes and mounting the sophisticated reconnaissance that enables them. We are in the process of re-deploying some of our Reaper remotely piloted aircraft from Afghanistan to the middle east to add to our surveillance capabilities.
	The security situation on the ground remains very serious, with ISIL maintaining control of significant swathes of territory in both Iraq and Syria. ISIL has made advances in Anbar province in recent days, including taking control of the city of Hit and attacking the provincial capital, Ramadi. At the same time, however, Kurdish forces have pushed back ISIL in the north, re-taking several strategically important villages. There will be tactical ebb and flow, but the coalition air campaign has stabilised the strategic picture, and the assessment of our experts is that Baghdad is not in immediate danger.
	Approximately 20% to 30% of Iraq’s populated territory could be under ISIL control. Liberating this territory from ISIL is a medium-term challenge to be measured in months and years, not days and weeks. The horrific effects of ISIL on governance, security and the social fabric will be felt for even longer.
	Prime Minister al-Abadi outlined to me his plans to reform the Iraqi security forces. He is clear-eyed about the scale of the challenges he faces and the resistance he will face in meeting them. However, reform will be essential if the ISF are to develop the capabilities necessary to defeat ISIL on the ground. The United States and others have committed to providing the necessary training. Britain has funded bomb disposal training for the Kurdish forces, as we did for the Iraqi security forces earlier in the year, and on Monday evening I saw for myself members of the 2nd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment training peshmerga to operate and maintain the heavy machine guns that Britain has gifted to them.
	In Syria, we need to reaffirm clearly, lest there be any doubt, that Assad cannot be part of the solution to the challenge of ISIL: the depravity of his regime was, after all, a driving factor in creating ISIL. Indeed, while the international coalition has been trying to save Kobane, Assad has been continuing his attacks and aerial bombardments on the moderates, including around Aleppo and Damascus. Those close to Assad should be in no
	doubt that he must be removed to clear the way for a Government in Damascus who enjoy legitimacy in the eyes of the Syrian people, credibility with the international community and who can take effective action against extremism. For as long as he remains in power, there will be no peace in Syria.
	Britain will continue to provide strong support to the moderate opposition, including technical assistance and non-lethal equipment. We have recently increased our funding to areas under opposition control and to regional allies, to increase their resilience against the effects of the Syria conflict. Our support, along with that of our allies, is helping the moderates to deliver good governance and strong public services in the area they control, thus relieving the suffering of the civilian population.
	Air strikes are being carried out in Syria by the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Jordan. The UK strongly supports this action. No one who has watched a television screen over the past week or so can have failed to be moved by the plight of the defenders of Kobane. Their situation has at times appeared hopeless, yet, supported by coalition air strikes, they are holding on and in some areas pushing back. The moderate opposition has held back ISIL in other parts of northern Syria. Air strikes have targeted ISIL’s headquarters, command and control, and military forces in the eastern provinces of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, degrading their capabilities. They have also hit the economic infrastructure that ISIL has been exploiting to generate revenue from illegal oil sales.
	The UK Government expect to make a significant contribution to the US-led programme to train the Syrian moderate armed opposition, which is fighting both Assad’s tyranny and ISIL’s extremism. Details of how that contribution will be delivered are currently being scoped.
	ISIL represents a threat to Iraq and to the region, but it also represents a major threat to us here at home, particularly at the hands of returning foreign fighters, and to our citizens worldwide. The UK has led the coalition on a number of wider counter-terrorism initiatives, which aim to cut off the flow of finance and fighters to ISIL in both Syria and Iraq.
	Through our membership of the United Nations Security Council, we have been instrumental in securing the listings of 20 individuals, including 16 directly linked to ISIL or the al-Nusra front, and two al-Qaeda-related organisations, since the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2170 on terrorist financing. We are also working closely with partners to disrupt ISIL’s access to external markets for illicit sales of oil and other goods. Domestically, we are seeking to strengthen the powers of the Charity Commission to counter terrorist abuse of the charity sector. On terrorist recruitment, the UK co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 2178 sets out a framework to dissuade, prevent and disrupt travel, to work with communities, to strengthen border controls and to manage the challenge of returning foreign fighters. We will now actively pursue that agenda throughout Europe and the middle east.
	As co-chairs of the Global Counter Terrorism Forum’s working group on countering violent extremism, we are looking at new ways to strengthen the ability of partners overseas to counter the terrorist propaganda that contributes to radicalisation, and to the recruitment and mobilisation of individuals into terrorism.
	The advance of ISIL and the Assad regime’s continued attrition against its own population have caused a humanitarian crisis in Iraq and Syria no less grave than the political and military one. More than 170,000 people have fled from Kobane, and more than 30,000 people have been displaced from the town of Hit in Anbar province as a result of recent fighting; many of them have ended up in the Kurdish region of Iraq. The need to winterise refugee accommodation is increasingly urgent as the wet weather and then the cold weather approaches. The Kurdish leadership made very clear to me the scale and urgency of the humanitarian crisis it faces in accommodating nearly 1 million refugees—perhaps half Iraq’s total population of internally displaced persons—at the same time as defending its 600-mile front line with ISIL. The humanitarian challenges go wider. In Syria, nearly 14 million people need assistance, with 6.5 million IDPs and 3 million refugees.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development recently announced £100 million in additional funding, bringing the UK contribution to the Syria crisis to £700 million. Our support is reaching hundreds of thousands of people across Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. UK aid is providing water for up to 1.5 million people, and has funded more than 5 million monthly food rations. In addition, we are supporting the Governments of Lebanon and Jordan to manage the impact of the huge influx of refugees to those countries on their host communities. Britain was one of the first donors to respond to the worsening situation in Iraq this summer, and has allocated a total of £23 million to Iraq since 13 June to meet immediate humanitarian needs and to support the UN and other agencies in their response. Aid has been focused on need, mainly in the Kurdish region. DFID has already responded to the urgent needs of the Syrian Kurdish refugees who have recently fled to Turkey, and it is ready to react swiftly to further developments.
	We have a wide-ranging and ambitious strategy to confront an evil that is a direct threat to our national security. I pay tribute to the members of our diplomatic service and international development teams in the region, who are working in very difficult circumstances, and, above all, to the men and women of our armed forces who are once again putting their lives at risk as Britain takes its place at the heart of the international coalition in waging a struggle against a barbaric force that has no place in human civilisation in the 21st century. They will always have our wholehearted support. I commend this statement to the House.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for advance sight of it, although I regret that, unlike under his predecessor, it was sent only a few moments before we had to head to the Chamber. None the less, let me of course echo him in expressing our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Alan Henning. He went to Syria to help the Syrian people in their most desperate time of need, and his callous murder by ISIL both confirms the brutality of an organisation that glorifies terror and defies decency and humanity.
	I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute not only to our armed forces for their outstanding work, but to the dedicated diplomats and aid workers who are today
	contributing to the UK’s efforts in the region. Let me of course pay tribute as well to the law enforcement officers and agencies in the United Kingdom, who endeavour each and every day to keep our borders safe.
	I welcome the steps that the British Government are taking to address the huge humanitarian needs within the region, but I urge them to make further efforts to ensure that the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs appeal is fully funded by the international community, notwithstanding the significant contribution that I am proud to say the United Kingdom has made.
	As well as the Foreign Secretary’s visit to the region this week, President Obama held a video conference with the Prime Minister, President Hollande, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Renzi of Italy to discuss the campaign against ISIL. On Tuesday, the United States hosted a summit with senior military commanders from across the international coalition to discuss the fight against ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Curiously, those discussions did not merit a mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement. What did feature was the Foreign Secretary’s assessment that the coalition air campaign has “stabilised the strategic picture”. That seems to be a somewhat complacent assessment, given that the air strikes initiated in recent weeks have failed to prevent ISIL from conquering almost all of Anbar province and coming close to overrunning the Syrian town of Kobane. It is reported that ISIL also drew to within 15 miles of Baghdad international airport only last weekend.
	The backdrop to the authorisation that Parliament granted for UK airstrikes in Iraq was the expectation that, within Iraq, the Iraqi military and the Kurds would provide resistance to ISIL’s advance on the ground. The United States has also committed significant resources to supporting the Free Syrian Army in Syria. However, only one of those forces—the Kurdish peshmerga—has so far resisted ISIL effectively. Incidentally, that force has historically not been armed or trained by our friends and allies in the United States.
	Against that challenging backdrop, I ask the Foreign Secretary the following questions. Reports in recent days have suggested that in Iraq’s Anbar province the Iraqi army abandoned a key base under cover of darkness, leaving 30,000 families defenceless and the way clear for ISIL to advance on Baghdad international airport. Only last month, General Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, stated that nearly half of the Iraqi military—24 out of 50 brigades—were incapable of fighting ISIL. In the light of his discussions in Iraq this week, can the Foreign Secretary offer more clarity on our Government’s assessment of the capability of the Iraqi armed forces? Will he also set out what consideration is being given to further material requests from the Kurdish peshmerga for training, equipment and support?
	In Syria today, the sight of hundreds of thousands of refugees, many of them Kurds, fleeing in terror from their homes in Kobane is a stark demonstration of the peril and persecution that so many citizens still face across the region. Reports overnight indicated, however, that the international coalition has made some progress in helping to secure parts of the border town. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm his assessment of those reports?
	The Foreign Secretary spoke on his visit to Iraq about a growing role for the UK in training and supporting local forces. Rather delphically, he has just told the
	House: “The UK Government expect to make a significant contribution to the US-led programme to train the Syrian moderate…opposition”. He went on to say that details of that contribution are currently being “scoped”. Will he therefore set out not the details, but the parameters of the potential UK contribution?
	Curiously, the Foreign Secretary chose to mention Turkey in his statement only in relation to humanitarian assistance. Given Turkey’s huge strategic significance, will he confirm whether he, personally, has raised the prospect of its contributing to the military coalition against ISIL with the Turkish Government directly?
	The long-term success of any approach will be measured by the role that is played by a broader alliance against ISIL and, in particular, by regional leaders, armies and communities. It is clear that the role of the Sunni communities and leaders across the region remains fundamental. In Iraq, the Sunni tribes who revolted against ISIL’s earlier incarnation in 2007 will undoubtedly be required to play a significant role once again. Across the region, leading Sunni countries must make tangible commitments to defeating ISIL, beyond simply writing cheques. Will the Foreign Secretary give his assessment of what progress is being made not only on halting the flow of fighters from within the region, but on disrupting the flow of finance to ISIL from countries within the region? Will he say whether it is realistic to expect that we will secure a significantly greater regional military contribution to the coalition campaign?
	Ultimately, the need for an integrated regional, military, diplomatic, humanitarian and political campaign against ISIL is common ground across the Chamber. Notwithstanding today’s statement, our view is that the severity of the threat that ISIL poses is not yet matched by the effectiveness of the national, regional and international response. I certainly welcome the optimism of the Foreign Secretary’s statement after his visit to Iraq, but the risks remain real and we remain concerned that recent weeks have seen more setbacks than progress on the ground.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If he received a copy of my statement only a few minutes before I rose to deliver it—as far as I am concerned, it was delivered to him a good 45 minutes before I stood up—I shall investigate what happened and write to him. Although I am optimistic about the commitment being shown in Baghdad—he mentioned the optimism of my tone—I thought I was frankly rather realistic about the challenges that lie ahead, particularly the time scales. His remarks and questions suggest that he is looking for a degree of instant gratification in response to the international coalition’s engagement that, I am afraid, is unlikely to be delivered.
	Let me go through the points that have been raised. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was an important conference of chiefs of defence staff to discuss the operation of the coalition forces, and that President Obama convened a video conference. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give the House a running commentary on the outcome of either of those discussions, but I can say that the conclusions of the read-outs I have seen were very much in line with what I have said this morning. The coalition
	intervention has stabilised the strategic picture, and ISIL is no longer making rapid advances, which we saw earlier in the summer. It has been forced into a defensive posture in many areas, and forced to change its tactics and resume the characteristics of a terrorist organisation, rather than operating as a conventional military force. The intervention of the coalition has had a significant impact, but, as I said, that in no way attempts to conceal the fact that there will of course be tactical ebb and flow. Towns will be taken and towns will be lost as the situation stabilises.
	The key question, which the right hon. Gentleman correctly identifies, is the capability of the Iraqi security forces. We have always been clear that although airstrikes are an important component, they can never deliver victory against ISIL on their own. That victory will be dependent on boots on the ground, and in southern Iraq those boots must be provided by the Iraqi security forces. In the north the Kurdish peshmerga are doing a good job, and we will continue to support them with training and additional equipment. It is clear—I had this discussion with President Barzani on Monday evening—that the peshmerga will not operate very far outside the Kurdish region. They may be prepared to take part in limited operations in the north outside the Kurdish region, but they will not be operating in the south or west of Iraq.
	We are dependent on rising to the challenge of rebuilding, restructuring, re-equipping and retraining the Iraqi security forces, after a period of years in which their capability was degraded by the blatant sectarianism of the Maliki Government, who appointed Shi’a officers, on the basis of tribal allegiance rather than military competence, to command posts that they were not necessarily suited for. There is a major job to be done, and we should be under no illusions about the technical challenge and political hurdles that Prime Minister al-Abadi will face—including resistance from his own Shi’a block in Parliament—to making the necessary changes. The reason for optimism is that the leaders at least understand that that has to be done, and that this is Iraq’s last chance to show that it can operate as a nation state.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about suggestions that 50% of ISF’s brigades were effectively undeployable and inoperable. That is an absolutely fair assessment, and I have heard higher assessments of the percentage of heavy equipment that has either been lost to ISIL or destroyed during fighting. He mentioned the role of the international coalition in Kobane, and I am pleased that the intensification of air strikes appears to have allowed the Kurdish resistance fighters in Kobane to retake some ground and consolidate their defence. Again, we should be under no illusion that we will be able to use coalition air power alone to save Kobane. We can support the forces on the ground, but it is that fight on the ground that will determine the outcome.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about training the Syrian moderate opposition, but I cannot give him detailed plans because the programme is still at an early stage. It is clear that the training will be done outside Syria in friendly regional countries, and that the forces to be trained will be paid on a regular basis from funding that the United States is providing. This will be a trained, disciplined and organised force returning to the fight in Syria under proper command and control.
	The right hon. Gentleman detected what he thought was perhaps reticence on my part to talk about the role of Turkey, whose role in this battle against ISIL is indeed complex. Turkey has complex relationships with Iraq and Syria, and the presence of a large Kurdish population spanning the borders of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey is a significant factor in how Turkey relates to this challenge. Turkey has made it clear that since the release of its hostages by ISIL, it is ready to engage with the coalition, but the exact form of that engagement must be sensitive to the historical context in which it sits, and to historical relationships between the Kurds and the Turks, the Kurds and the Iraqis, and the Iraqis and the Turks. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I spoke to my Turkish opposite number on Friday, following discussions earlier last week in the United States on the specific question of Turkey’s role in the coalition. The UK National Security Adviser is in Turkey today for further such discussions, and they are at the forefront of the coalition’s agenda as we take the debate forward.
	Finally, let me respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about Sunni countries in the region and the regional powers. From a western perspective, we are looking at a Muslim region, and we are asking and expecting Muslim countries in the coalition to do more to lead this fight. I was in the Gulf on Tuesday and I detected a clear willingness on the part of the Gulf Arabs to commit to the fight and to address issues of funding flows, and much has already been done. Again, however, we must be sensitive to the historical and cultural context in which these questions sit. Prime Minister al-Abadi has to take a Shi’a majority in Parliament and a Shi’a majority population with him in the fight against ISIL. In working out how best to utilise the willingness of Sunni Arab countries to become engaged in this fight, he must ensure that he is respectful of the sensitivities of his own Shi’a population, and ensure that this is a fight that we can all deliver together, without trampling on historical sensitivities along the way.

Richard Ottaway: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the tone and approach of his statement, but may I press him a little further on the role of Turkey? Will he verify the truth of rather astonishing reports that the Turks bombed Kurdish PKK camps in the last few days, rather than ISIL camps? Can he confirm that the Turks have said that they will not intervene on the ground in Syria unless the opposition is armed? He has spoken about further support for the moderate armed opposition, but will the further support that he says is under consideration include the supply of lethal equipment?

Philip Hammond: The UK’s position at the moment is that we will not supply lethal equipment to the Syrian armed opposition. We are supplying non-lethal equipment and we will provide training in due course. Although the discussion with Turkey about the role it will play is ongoing, I have not heard any conditionality proposed by the Turks around arming the Syrian opposition as a precondition for Turkish involvement on the ground. There have been discussions on various other issues, but I have not heard that one.
	My right hon. Friend asked me about the reports in the media that Turkish forces have attacked PKK bases within Turkey. I, too, have read those reports. There is a
	historic pattern of conflict between Turkey and armed PKK locations. I cannot verify those particular reports, but it is important to emphasise that the reports relate to PKK positions in south-eastern Turkey rather than in Syria. I hope those responses are helpful to my right hon. Friend.

Peter Hain: As a former Minister with responsibility for the middle east, may I express my disappointment at the Foreign Secretary’s failure to answer the pertinent questions put by the shadow Foreign Secretary? In particular, does not the situation around Kobane symbolise the complete failure of this Government’s policy towards dealing with Syria and the wider conflict that it has spawned around ISIL? The truth is that the Turkish Government are unwilling to intervene to stop ISIL—its tanks are literally parked looking down at Kobane—until Assad has gone. Assad is not going to go, however much we all want him to, because he has too much firepower standing behind him, including the Russians and the Iranians. Until there is a serious strategy of engagement and negotiation to bring about the transition, we will continue to pursue this futile policy and we will not be able to defeat ISIL. Does he not agree?

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman says that he speaks as a former Minister with responsibility for the middle east, so he will know, perhaps better than most, the complexity of this area. We can only guess at the complex motives and motivations of Turkey in its individual actions, but I am not sure that his analysis of why the Turks have not intervened in Kobane is correct. Frankly, I think this has more to do with intra-Kurdish politics than it has to do with the regime in Damascus, but it is a complex situation. There are many different conflicts wrapped up within this overall battle, many of them deeply historic and with very complex roots.
	In the debate a couple of weeks ago on intervention in Iraq, the right hon. Gentleman made very clear, to his credit, his view that we should be further forward- leaning still—that we should be prepared to intervene in Syria. What I would be very interested to hear, and did not hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman’s speech, is an indication whether that is now the Opposition’s view.

Menzies Campbell: I personally find it increasingly difficult to justify the distinction in our policy between Iraq and Syria. If the town of Kobane falls, the outcome for its inhabitants, based on previous experience, could be apocalyptic. In those circumstances, is there not a case for the United Kingdom to join in the air operations in Syria under the authority of not only the right of humanitarian intervention but, perhaps more pertinently, the duty to protect?

Philip Hammond: I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says about the distinction between Iraq and Syria. He is absolutely right that in military terms this is a single theatre of operations. The Government continue to review our position with regard to Syria. As we have said before, if we come to the conclusion that there is a military case for Britain taking part in air strikes in Syria, we will come back to the House of Commons and there will be a separate debate on that. What I would say to him is that my meetings in Washington last
	week left me with the clear understanding that there is no shortage of air power capability in Syria. The targets that are being identified are being prosecuted. What is needed is not more strike power; it is more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in order to generate targets. That does not require UK participation in strike operations.
	I want also to respond to my right hon. and learned Friend’s comments on Kobane. Of course it would be a very negative development if Kobane were to fall, but he should be aware that the great majority of the inhabitants have already left that town, many of them crossing the border into Turkey. As we understand it, there is a very small number of civilians left in the town.

Mike Gapes: The Foreign Secretary referred to the 170,000 people who have left Kobane, but the city has not fallen. It has not fallen because the brave Kurdish Syrian PYD fighters are resisting, but they are outgunned. When he says that we should be supporting the moderate Syrian opposition, is there any suggestion that that should include the Kurdish Syrian opposition, who are fighting hard to protect the civilian population in that part of Syria?

Philip Hammond: Yes. We would look to work with all opposition groups in Syria who are committed to a democratic future for Syria, but the hon. Gentleman will know, returning to the theme of the complexity of the historic conflicts in this area, that the Turkish Government regard PYD as a terrorist organisation and have said in terms that they regard it as on a par with ISIL. The Turkish Government see what is happening in Kobane as two terrorist organisations fighting each other.

Liam Fox: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that ISIS cannot be defeated by air power alone, and that success on the ground will be required. Frankly, if we cannot get the Sunni tribes in Anbar province to take up arms against ISIS, this is simply not going to happen. What are our Sunni Arab partners in the coalition doing to try to bring those tribes into this situation so that they can provide some of those ground forces? Will he also tell us what our allies in the Arab world believe the end game to be, politically? Many now believe it is inevitable that the final outcome will have to be a federal Iraq that gives Sunnis the guarantee of some autonomy, having seen how they were utterly betrayed by the Maliki Government?

Philip Hammond: To answer my right hon. Friend’s last point first, yes, I think there is a widespread realism in Baghdad, not just among the Gulf Arab countries, that a viable future Iraq will have to involve considerable devolution of autonomy to the Sunni areas, as well as to the Kurdish region. The recognition of that by Prime Minister al-Abadi is an important step forward, but he still faces huge challenges in delivering it because not all of his own Shi’a block in Parliament understands the existential need to devolve power within Iraq if the country is to remain together.
	My right hon. Friend asked me about the Sunni tribes in Anbar. He is of course right. There are three potential forces in Iraq to fight ISIL: the Kurdish peshmerga; the Iraqi security forces, once they are reorganised and retrained; and the Sunni tribes in Anbar and other western provinces. A significant programme of outreach to tribal leaders is going on, partly led by Sunni Gulf countries that have tribal links to them. Also, we, and our American partners, have significant links to these tribes from our own time operating in Iraq and through key individuals who developed significant personal relationships with tribal leaders and have access to them.

Hywel Williams: I, too, was surprised at the lack of reference in the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the role of Turkey. May I get a response from him on one point? Will he prevail on the Turkish Government not to attack legitimate civilian protest in locations as far apart as Van, Mardin, Diyarbakir and Istanbul? Up to 9 October, 33 civilians have been killed by Turkish police and paramilitaries, and 336 people, I believe, have been injured, allegedly by Turkish forces chanting, “Long live ISIL”.

Philip Hammond: We regret the outbreak of violence in domestic protests in Turkey—something we had hoped we had put behind us—and, as always, we deplore the use of violence in protests and the use of violence by the authorities in dealing with those protests. We make our views known consistently to our Turkish allies.

John Baron: May I urge caution on those who advocate increased military intervention, whether in Iraq or Syria? Our track record in understanding the nuances of the region has been poor over the past decade, whether in Iraq in 2003, the disastrous morphing of the mission in Afghanistan in 2006, Libya or, indeed, our differing positions on the Syrian civil war only recently. However, may I turn the Foreign Secretary’s attention to the politics in Baghdad? The layer below the immediate leadership has essentially remained the same, which makes the adoption of a more inclusive form of politics far less likely. That will be an uphill struggle. What are we going to do about it?

Philip Hammond: I made specific reference to that in my opening remarks. It is true that Prime Minister al-Abadi faces a significant challenge in persuading those on his own side, including a bloc of Shi’a representatives in Parliament led by former Prime Minister al-Maliki, to acquiesce in what will be some very difficult decisions for the Shi’a community to accept. This moment demands great leadership, and we will offer Prime Minister al-Abadi all the support we can to do that. If I wanted to identify a reason to be optimistic, it would be this: the advance of ISIL earlier this summer has shocked the political elite in Baghdad, as well as the Iranian Government, who hold significant influence over the Shi’a bloc in the Iraqi Parliament. There is awareness in Baghdad that something has to change and that if something is not done, the battle will be lost.

Meg Hillier: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for the peshmerga and the ongoing support of the UK Government, and he was right to recognise the bravery
	of the defenders of Kobane. However, what detailed conversations is he having about opening up a humanitarian corridor to ensure that the people, including women, who have taken up arms to defend their families are supported and protected and that we avoid the apocalypse mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell)?

Philip Hammond: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is talking about Syria or Iraq. In Syria, under the authority of the UN Security Council resolution, of course we are seeking humanitarian access to communities under pressure, and we will continue to assert our right to deliver humanitarian aid and the regime’s obligation under international law to allow the aid to be delivered. As she will know, we are also focusing a lot of aid in the Kurdish region of Iraq. I have not been able to verify this personally, but I was told on Monday by the Kurdish President that many of the Kurds who left Kobane and crossed the border into Turkey have now made their way into Iraqi Kurdistan, because of the relative safety there and the relatively good level of humanitarian provision being delivered under UN auspices.

Sarah Newton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the brave aid workers at ShelterBox? It is providing ShelterBox tents and tented medical clinics to the vast numbers of people that, according to those I have spoken to at ShelterBox, are making their way to the relatively safe haven of Iraqi Kurdistan. In the last two weeks, more than 540 tents have been distributed and set up, and I understand that another 1,300 are awaiting distribution.

Philip Hammond: I am happy to endorse the efforts of ShelterBox, an organisation my hon. Friend obviously knows something about, and commend its efforts. The urgent need in Kurdistan now is for winterisation. Camps have been set up and are accommodating just under 1 million internally displaced persons within the territory controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government, but as winter approaches, they will face a dire situation if that accommodation is not effectively winterised against the very harsh conditions in that mountainous area.

Sandra Osborne: On the point abut winterisation, will the Secretary of State comment on media reports that British Army equipment abandoned in Afghanistan could, if moved to Irbil, save the lives of up to 20,000 Iraqi refugees?

Philip Hammond: As far as I am aware, unless policy has changed in the three months since I left the Ministry of Defence, there is no British equipment of any value being abandoned in Afghanistan; the overwhelming majority of Britain’s equipment is being brought back, reconditioned and taken back into use by the British Army.

Sandra Osborne: What about tents?

Philip Hammond: I do not think we have any shortage of tents. I will talk to colleagues in the Department for International Development, but my understanding is that we have plenty of physical equipment. The problem in the Kurdish region is with logistics, rather than the
	physical infrastructure of tents and so on, and now the challenge is to make the accommodation appropriate for the harsh winter conditions.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I ask hon. Members to focus on crisp, single questions to the Foreign Secretary, whom I am sure will give crisp and short answers, so that we can get everybody in and still have time for the debates later.

Gerald Howarth: First, may I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s serious endeavours to get to grips with some very complex problems? He said that having boots on the ground was essential. To ask a crisp question, what are the prospects of getting the Iraqi army retrained—

Bob Stewart: Or others.

Gerald Howarth: Or others, as my hon. Friend says. It was a matter of extraordinary surprise, after the investment made by British and American troops in training the Iraqis, that they collapsed in the face of the enemy.

Philip Hammond: We need to do two things to make this work. First, we need to retrain the basic manpower of the Iraqi army. It can be done, but it will take some time and, in the meantime, we will have to use air power to hold the line. Secondly, we need significant change in the senior command and control structure, including the replacement of essentially political appointees under the previous regime with competent military people. That will be a challenge, because these people will have their vested interests and their constituencies behind them, but it is the challenge that Prime Minister al-Abadi faces.

Tom Clarke: Returning to the humanitarian issues that the Foreign Secretary raised, I acknowledge the work of DFID, the UN, the non-governmental organisations and the international community, but in the areas of Iraq and Syria under ISIL control, the response to the humanitarian crisis is dependent wholly on local organisations. What help can we give them?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his expression of support for DFID and the international community that is trying to deliver aid. He is absolutely right, of course: in the areas controlled by ISIL, informal support to local NGOs is one strand of the work that DFID and the international aid community are doing. The aid community is acutely aware that it needs to work with the grain of the local situation, and where it provides support in ISIL-controlled areas, it has to work with who it can. That will not always be ideal, but it will get as much aid to those areas as possible.

David Jones: I wonder whether I could press the Foreign Secretary further on the role of Turkey. It is a concern that foreign fighters are still crossing the border from Turkey into Syria to join ISIS. It is also a concern that the Turkish authorities are still equivocal about the use of the Incirlik air base by
	coalition forces. Will my right hon. Friend say what representations he has made to the Turkish Government on those two matters?

Philip Hammond: As I mentioned earlier, the national security adviser is in Turkey today and will be talking to the Turkish authorities. For operational security reasons, I do not propose—and, I do not propose as a Government—to give a running commentary on which bases in which countries are being used for which operations. What I can say to my right hon. Friend is that control along the Turkish-Syrian and Turkish-Iraqi border has significantly improved over the last few weeks. We have close contact with the Turks on the movement of British-originating potential fighters across that border, and although there is still more that can be done, we are generally very pleased with the advances that have been made over the last few weeks.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Foreign Secretary not concerned about the apparently very close relationship that exists between some elements of the Turkish Government and forces and the ISIL forces? Does he not think that in the long run there has to be a political settlement? That must include the right of self-determination for the Kurdish peoples all across the region, who have frankly been wronged ever since the end of the first world war on the question of their own identity. It is an issue that will simply not go away.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman’s intervention just goes to underline how complex the situation is. We are not dealing with a conflict; we are dealing with a number of conflicts that interact with each other and mean that some of the participants have multiple considerations that they are dealing with when they decide how to act. Progress was being made—has been made—in Turkey over the last couple of years in resolving differences between the Turkish state and its Kurdish population. Significant progress has been made. I am afraid that what is going on now across the region is not helpful to that process and is not taking it forward. I think it is probably premature at this stage to speculate on the end outcome, but clearly the relationship between the different Kurdish groups in the four different countries is a crucial part of the overall conflict.

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has used strong language in his statement. He says that Islamic State is “an evil which is a direct threat to our national security.” He says that it is possessed of a “poisonous ideology”. He says that it is “a barbaric force that has no place in human civilisation in the 21st century”; and he says that it “represents a major threat to us, here at home, particularly at the hands of returning foreign fighters”. Given that, with the assent of this House, Her Majesty’s armed forces are now engaged in military action against Islamic State, given that we have all witnessed on television the beheading by a British jihadist of British and American aid workers, and given that the offence of treason still exists, but has not been used since 1946, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that British jihadists who return from Iraq and Syria are prosecuted for the offence of treason? Their actions are treachery against Her Majesty, and
	aiding and abetting enemies of Her Majesty is one of the greatest offences a British citizen can commit. The message should go out from this House—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time. He knows that this is not an opportunity to make a speech. He has made his point very powerfully and I am sure the Foreign Secretary will respond equally powerfully.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend makes his point with great passion. He will know that there are a number of offences under English law with which returning foreign fighters can be charged. We have had a discussion about the allegiance question. We have seen people declaring that they have sworn personal allegiance to the so-called Islamic State. That does raise questions about their loyalty and allegiance to this country and about whether, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the offence of treason could have been committed. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the Home Secretary, who ultimately will be the person who needs to look at this.

Gisela Stuart: There are indeed many historic and political reasons for Turkey not to take a more active part in fighting ISIL, but will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that Turkey is not putting anything in the way of those who do wish to take part, in terms of access to air space or land routes, and also say to what extent any negotiations that the United States is having with Turkey at the moment over access and activity include the United Kingdom?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady will know that the Turkish Parliament has recently passed a law that allows Turkish air bases to be used by international forces, allows the stationing of international forces on Turkish soil and allows the passage of international forces across Turkish soil and through Turkish air space, so the framework is now in place to permit a high level of collaboration. What we, the Americans and the French are still talking to the Turks about is how best they can deliver their contribution to the coalition in a way that recognises the historical sensitivities, but none the less makes a significant contribution to the effort against ISIL.

Julian Smith: The women and men of our intelligence and security services are doing the most incredible job at this difficult time. Will my right hon. Friend pass on the thanks of this House and confirm that if they need anything—whether support from this place or further budget and financial support—they will be given it?

Philip Hammond: I am probably long enough in the tooth to know that questions asking for categorical assurances of further additional budget resources are ones for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it is the case, as my hon. Friend says, that the intelligence and security services are making a huge contribution to the fight against ISIL. Much of the fight has to take place in the intelligence and security space. It is about stopping foreign fighters getting out there, tracking them while they are out there, intercepting
	them if they try to come back, cutting off funding flows and stopping the supply of illicit equipment and materials. The services have reprioritised—something they do incredibly effectively when they need to—to make this their main effort and they are providing a huge input to the fight.

Keith Vaz: Further to the contribution from the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), 30 British jihadists have died since the current fighting started, and all the evidence is that the more that die, the more that want to go and fight. Although I obviously accept the package of measures that the Foreign Secretary has set out to the House today, what more can be done to stop people going in the first place—not just to stop them crossing borders, but to stop them boarding those flights?

Philip Hammond: It is probably worth noting that, as well as the reported 30 dead, there have been media reports of an even larger number of jihadis who, having seen the brutality of ISIL, want to escape from it and return, but are reportedly unable to do so. The kernel of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is about how we stop people getting out there. We have to take a multi-tiered, multi-layered approach. We start by trying to explain to them the reality of what ISIL is about, undermining its narrative and ideology, and explaining to them that it is incompatible with any reasonable and sensible interpretation of Islam. If we do not succeed in dissuading people, we will try to intercept them, and we have an increasing number of tools available to us. If we fail to intercept them leaving the UK, we have the opportunity, through our collaboration with Turkey, to intercept them when they seek to cross the Turkish border. At all those stages, we will do everything we can to prevent foreign fighters from reaching Iraq and Syria.

Diane Abbott: We have heard about the gallantry of the Kurdish ground troops, often led by women, who are defending Kobane, but is there any possibility of a humanitarian corridor through Turkish territory to give humanitarian aid and support to its besieged inhabitants?

Philip Hammond: Looking at a map, that would exactly be the logic. My understanding is that the Turks are allowing humanitarian supplies across the border, but they are not currently allowing military reinforcements across their border.

Jim Shannon: ISIL swept across northern Iraq and the middle of Iraq in its brutal and bloody campaign of genocide. One thing that concerns many people within and outside the House is the kidnapping and abduction of women, children and families. What steps have been taken to return those members of families to their loved ones, and what can be done to help them?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right: there have, sadly, been industrial-scale organised kidnappings—perhaps not so much kidnappings as enslavement of large numbers of people, particularly of women but people of communities and faiths that ISIL does not recognise or approve of. Sadly, there is little that we, from outside, are able to do to trace what has happened
	to those people on the ground. Some of them have escaped and turned up as refugees, and their heart-rending stories have been published in some of the newspapers, which the hon. Gentleman will have seen. I am afraid we have low visibility when it comes to what has happened to many of these people.

John Woodcock: What is the rationale for proving only non-lethal support to the Syrian moderate opposition?

Philip Hammond: The Government’s decision to date has been that we do not wish to move to the provision of lethal support to Syrian opposition groups while the opposition remains as fragmented as it is and the intentions of all the groups in it are not as clear as we would like. Some of the groups that might have been considered eligible for support as members of the moderate opposition two years ago have subsequently shown themselves to have little in common with our view of the democratic future of Syria.

Diana Johnson: The Foreign Secretary has talked a number of times about stopping the flow of fighters going to join ISIL. Is any specific work being done on the very disturbing reports of young women, who are actually children, being radicalised and travelling from this country to the region to become brides of ISIL fighters?

Philip Hammond: There is. It is an absolutely central strand of the work that the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government lead. The trafficking of any people who are not adults for any purpose is deeply to be deplored—and for the purposes outlined by the hon. Lady, even more so. It is, as I say, an essential strand of the work going on.

John Cryer: In answer to an earlier question from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the Foreign Secretary seemed to say that there were no grounds for extending British military activities into Syria. If I am right, and on that basis, will he today rule out any such extension of British military action across the border into Syria?

Philip Hammond: No. To make the position clear, we have always said that we have not ruled out the possibility of extending British military action in the form of air strikes into Syria, but that we would need to see a clear military case for doing so. In other words, we need to be able to make a contribution that would add some significant value to the coalition effort. What I said was that my understanding of the current situation is that there are plenty of strike assets available for use in Syria. The US as coalition lead is not short of ability to strike targets in Syria; what it is short of is properly reconnoitred targets that we can strike safely without fear of creating collateral damage or civilian casualties. The need at the moment is for more ISR—intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—not more strike assets.

Andrew Love: Returning to the humanitarian crisis in and around Kobane, the Foreign Secretary is right that an estimated 178,000 refugees have crossed the border into Turkey, but many were seeking sanctuary in Kobane and are left there
	under threat. Given the sensitivities in the relationship between the Kurdish community and the Turkish authorities, can the right hon. Gentleman reassure us that he or other Ministers have had conversations with the Turkish authorities to ensure that they will be up to the problems created by a humanitarian crisis, should it occur?

Philip Hammond: I understand that an estimated 20,000 civilians remain in Kobane. The Turks have an excellent record of accommodating refugees crossing their border. They have accommodated hundreds of thousands of refugees, and the great majority of the population of Kobane has already evacuated the city, mostly across the border into Turkey. Should the remaining population choose to leave the city, I have no reason to suppose that they would be unable to do so via Turkey.

Huw Irranca-Davies: From the words and tone of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, it seems that those who have fled the conflict to protect their lives might now find themselves in jeopardy if there is inadequate preparation for the onset of winter. How confident is the right hon. Gentleman that the extensive efforts going on will ensure that people who have saved their lives from conflict do not lose their lives through winter?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman asks the right question. People who will have moved to a place of safety, if not one of comfort, now face the real challenges of a mounting winter. I am confident that between the bilateral efforts, the international agency presence and the significant work being done by the Government of the Kurdistan region, we are not talking about placing lives in jeopardy as a result of the onset of winter. I do not think the situation is at that level of extreme, but I do think we face the risk of some real suffering during the winter if we are unable to deliver all the winterisation equipment required before the onset of the really cold weather.

Point of Order

Guto Bebb: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 September, I secured an Adjournment debate entitled “North Wales Police and Anonymous Blog Site”. During the debate, I highlighted information presented to me by a private investigator who identified a Mr Nigel Roberts and a Mr Dylan Moore as being involved with the site. Mr Roberts subsequently admitted his involvement, but Mr Moore strongly denied it. Following a long meeting with Mr Moore, I formed a view that the conclusion raised by the private investigator with respect to Mr Moore was incorrect. While Mr Moore accepted that I acted in good faith, it is important to me to correct the record. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The record will show his comments.

Cycling

[Relevant Document: Third Report from the Transport Select Committee, Session 2014-15, Cycling Safety, HC 286]

Dawn Primarolo: Before I call Ian Austin to move the motion, let me clarify that there will be an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions to this debate, which is heavily subscribed. I ask Mr Austin to take no longer than 15 minutes. I will prompt him, but I am sure it will not be necessary after 15 minutes.

Ian Austin: I beg to move,
	That this House supports the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report ‘Get Britain Cycling’; endorses the target of 10 per cent of all journeys being by bike by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2050; and calls on the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual Cycling Action Plan, sustained funding for cycling and progress towards meeting the report’s recommendations.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, providing us with another opportunity to discuss the “Get Britain Cycling” report, produced by the all-party cycling group, which I jointly chair with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). The Backbench Business Committee kindly agreed to two debates in the past, both of which saw unprecedented numbers of Members participating. We asked for this debate because we wanted to discuss the Government’s so-called cycling delivery plan—their long-awaited response to our inquiry and the report we published.
	I would like to record our thanks to everyone who took part in our three-month inquiry and to all the organisations that supported it, including British Cycling, the CTC, Sustrans and the Bicycle Association among others. I particularly want to thank Chris Boardman, a phenomenal advocate of cycling in Britain, and Phil Goodwin and Adam Coffman who pulled the report together. I also thank News International, now News UK, for sponsoring the inquiry. Its involvement was the result of a campaign by The Times. Those on The Times have done a phenomenal job in promoting cycling in Britain: it is a great tribute to their colleague Mary Bowers, who was severely injured while travelling to work in 2011.
	The Committee heard from hundreds of witnesses, and our report contains some important recommendations. A central recommendation is for long-term, dedicated funding of £10 per head per year, rather than limited funding for eight cities for a couple of years. We want 10% of journeys to be made by bike by 2025—the figure was less than 2% in 2011—and we call for lower speed limits in urban areas. We want more effective enforcement of the law, we want children to be taught to ride at school, we want more segregated cycle lanes, and we want cycling to be considered properly as part of the urban planning process. We also call for top-level, committed leadership, because cross-departmental collaboration is essential if we are to improve cycling conditions in Britain.

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman mentioned enforcement of the law. A matter of concern, certainly in my constituency, is the need for the employers of lorry drivers to recognise
	their responsibility not to put drivers under pressure to drive for too long, so that they do not risk being unable to concentrate and to avoid cyclists who are also on the road.

Ian Austin: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is also important to note the improvements that can be made. Mirrors, sensors and alarms, for instance, can be fitted to lorries to ensure that it is safe for them to use the roads at the same time as cyclists.

Kerry McCarthy: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about lorry safety. Does he share my disappointment that the plan published by the Government today is notably lacking in any commitment to address the issue? Lorries are responsible for a fifth of cycling fatalities in Britain, and there have been fatalities in Bristol recently.

Ian Austin: I am disappointed by the plan that was published today, for all sorts of reasons, about which I shall say more shortly, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to give that example.
	A study published today by academics from the universities of Leeds and Cambridge and commissioned by the CTC shows the benefits that investing in cycling would bring. We face an epidemic of illnesses linked to inactivity and obesity, but investment equivalent to £10 per person to boost the proportion of trips made on bikes from 3% to 10% could save the NHS budget nearly £1 billion a year. The wider health benefits could be worth £6 billion by 2025 and £25 billion by 2050. Investment in cycling would prevent heart disease, reduce the number of strokes, and cut diabetes and colon cancer rates. As The Times says in an editorial today,
	“Meeting this demand is not to ask for preferential treatment... the requested level would take total funding up to £600 million a year—3 per cent. of the transport budget for 3 per cent. of the trips taken.”
	A report entitled “Benefits of Investing in Cycling”, written by Dr Rachel Aldred and commissioned by British Cycling, also shows that such investment would make a massive difference to society. It demonstrates that cycling can have an overwhelmingly positive effect on everyone, whether they cycle or not. The possible benefits range from saving the NHS £17 billion to increasing the mobility of the nation’s poorest families by 25%. Getting more people cycling would enable more people to get the exercise that they need, and would make Britain healthier. Traffic delays in London cost £1.5 billion a year. An increase in cycling would tackle congestion and pollution, and would make our roads safer and our transport system more efficient. It would enable people on low incomes to travel more easily, would make our town and city centres more pleasant places, and would support local economies.

Ian Lucas: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I know that many more people in my constituency would like to cycle. The biggest barrier is safety. Why does the United Kingdom have so few segregated lanes in comparison with the countries that I visit in mainland Europe?

Ian Austin: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. The best way of making cycling safe is to get more people on their bikes, and we will do that by improving the facilities that are available for cycling.

Caroline Lucas: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has spoken about safety and about funding. Does he agree that we need funding for revenue as well as capital? We need money to go to cycle groups and local councils so that they can invest in safety as well as in cycle lanes.

Ian Austin: The hon. Lady is right, and I shall discuss that point at some length in a few minutes.
	Promoting cycling would be good for our transport systems as a whole, for local economies, for social inclusion, and for public health. People who think that investing in cycling is somehow anti-motorist, or against the car, should ask themselves why the AA has joined the campaign to boost cycling. It has done so because cycling is an obvious way of reducing congestion, which has been estimated to cost the UK economy £4.3 billion a year. Research from Denmark has shown that a nation makes a 13p profit for every kilometre cycled, but an 8p loss for every kilometre driven.
	As I said earlier, this is our third debate on cycling in the last three years. The first was triggered by the campaign run by TheTimes. More than 70 Members took part in that debate; even more, well over 100, took part in the second. Sadly, I think that fewer will take part today. We asked for this debate so that we can discuss the Government’s response to the recommendations in our report. We had been promised that response for months, but the Government kept delaying its publication amid numerous reports of wrangles and disputes between the various Departments involved. Because it was not clear when it would be published, cycling organisations and the media were unable to promote the debate and encourage their members and supporters to lobby MPs to take part in it. It turns out that the document—1 do not think that it could be credibly described as a delivery plan—was published this morning. As a result, we have been left far too little time to subject it to proper scrutiny, although it is already clear that it is a very disappointing piece of work. We waited a year for this report, but it makes no real commitments at all.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Is it not clear from the cycling delivery plan that this was a rushed, botched job, and that the Government rushed it out just to have something on the table so that they could respond to the debate?

Ian Austin: Given the delay, I am not sure that we can say that it was rushed, but it was certainly botched. I do not think that many people will take the report very seriously, and I think that they will be very disappointed by its contents. The Prime Minister promised a cycling revolution, and the report talks of achieving Scandinavian or Dutch levels of cycling, but that is impossible without real commitments to increase funding levels.
	The Government have promised that
	“cycling will be at the heart of future road developments”,
	and say that they are
	“committed to turning Britain into a cycling nation to rival our European neighbours."
	If the Minister answers just one question in this debate, I hope that he will tell us how those two promises can be taken seriously when the Netherlands spends £25 per
	head on cycling while the UK spends about £2, and when the highways budget in the UK is £15 billion while the funds announced for cycling are about £150 million, with no dedicated funding stream that allows local authorities to plan for more than two years.
	Despite all the promises, today’s report speaks only of an “aspiration” to “explore” the possibility of investment. The Government are spending £64 billion on road building and HS2, but they cannot commit the funds that are needed to boost cycling in Britain. In the Netherlands 27% of journeys are made by bike, and at least £25 per head is spent on cycling. That is followed by Denmark, with 19% of journeys made by bike and spending of at least £20 per head. At the current rate, we shall not reach Dutch levels of cycling until the 23rd century. England languishes towards the lower end of the European league table, with less than £5 per head spent on cycling, and even that is set to decrease.
	No budget was set for cycling in the Government’s 2010 spending review. All that we have seen are stop-start injections of cash, and the announcement of competitive bids when the Department for Transport underspends its budget. Such a fragmented approach is no way to “Get Britain Cycling”. Spending on cycling, it has been said, is smoke and mirrors: Ministers have top-sliced Bikeability funding from the local sustainable transport fund, claimed credit for funding allocated by the last Government, and counted Cycling England’s budget in its figures although they abolished it. The LSTF has provided £600 million for sustainable travel, but there is no way to determine how much of that has been spent on specific cycling schemes. The Government claim spending has doubled, but half of all local authorities have been forced to reduce their spending on cycling and over a third have had to cut staff. For a cycling and walking delivery plan to be meaningful, it must contain a commitment to long-term consistent funding.
	As we heard a moment ago, there also needs to be a real commitment to consistent revenue funding. A key element of the LSTF has been inclusion of both capital and revenue elements to enable streets and routes to be transformed, alongside programmes to support and encourage people to walk or cycle. Further commitment to both types of funding for active travel is urgently needed, particularly given the scarcity of revenue funding for transport in local authority budgets, but the local growth fund, which replaces the LSTF and which is overseen by local enterprise partnerships, is purely capital funding.
	In response to a recent parliamentary question, the Government calculated that the spend on cycling in England is equivalent to £5 per person per year. Of this, 80% is directly or indirectly attributable to dedicated funding from Government, the largest component of which is the LSTF, but with the LSTF coming to an end in 2016, bringing to a close six years of dedicated funding for cycling and walking, there is now no guarantee that money will be spent on cycling and walking, and in fact no budget line for cycling and walking at all.
	Analysis of major scheme bids to the local growth fund shows that less than half of local enterprise partnerships have put forward any projects for walking, cycling or public transport, with road building making up three quarters of the bids from some LEPs. Without sustained and substantial committed investment from Government, total spend on cycling and walking will
	fall sharply after 2015-16, to a fraction of current levels and far below the £10 per head per year target. Commitment is the vital ingredient missing from this plan that has simply an aspiration to explore funding opportunities.
	The Government have also failed when it comes to taking cross-departmental action, especially in getting the Department of Health to commit to revenue funding which, as I said earlier, would produce such huge health benefits. There is also no mention whatsoever of the role the Department for Communities and Local Government has to play, which is absolutely unbelievable given that so much of the work to improve facilities and safety for cyclists has to be done by local authorities.

Ben Bradshaw: We know the reason for that. The Communities Secretary said that cycling was a middle-class obsession that did not bother ordinary people.

Ian Austin: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman to keep an eye on the clock? The 15 minutes are ticking by.

Ian Austin: May I ask how long I have left, as I have not been following that?

Dawn Primarolo: I did offer to put that on the clock for the hon. Gentleman, but he declined that. He started at 12.58, and therefore has under a minute, but he has taken a lot of interventions. If he could take no more than another two minutes, we would be grateful.

Ian Austin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is right about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He seems to believe that without the car culture, the high street would die, but when New York city introduced segregated bike lanes recently there were widespread predictions of economic hardship, yet trade rose by 24%, so on that, as on so much else, the Communities Secretary is completely wrong.
	I will now draw my remarks to a conclusion in light of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	With just a few months until the election we need a massive effort to make cycling a bigger political issue so we can get the parties committed to increasing the funding for cycling and have lower speed limits in urban areas, better enforcement of the law, children taught to ride at school, more segregated cycle lanes and cycling considered properly as part of the urban planning process.
	We need everyone involved in cycling to write to MPs and candidates so we can get Britain cycling and change our country for good.

Dawn Primarolo: Thank you very much, Mr Austin, for leaving more time for others to speak. I am sure they will be very grateful.

George Young: I congratulate the all-party group on securing this debate, which is the third such debate in this Parliament. I was
	precluded by ministerial office from contributing to the earlier two, although I attended them, but I am now unconstrained.
	I pay tribute to the work of the all-party group on cycling, The Times, British Cycling, Sustrans, Living Streets, CTC and all the other cycling organisations that have helped to propel cycling up the political agenda. A substantial number of cyclists in North West Hampshire have e-mailed to ask me to support the campaign, which I do.
	I also pay tribute to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who is replying to the debate and who himself travels regularly on two wheels—as, indeed, I do. I commend him for the way in which he has responded to the campaign and engaged with the key stakeholders. Within the Lycra suit of public expenditure constraint, no one could have done more than him. I also commend the progress made by the coalition Government in recent years under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am delighted that they are both present. They have both been pedalling hard and I urge them to press even harder on the pedals in the remaining months of the Parliament. For example, we have an autumn statement coming up soon, and it would be helpful if the Chancellor were able to mention cycling in that statement and how it might be supported in the future.
	I want to make a brief contribution by putting in perspective this ongoing campaign by MPs to get a better deal for cyclists. On 11 July 1975, nearly 40 years ago and before some contributors to this debate were born, I initiated an Adjournment debate on cycling, along with our former colleague Anthony Steen. The two of us took over the APPG, which had been free-wheeling for many years, in order to raise the profile of cycling. The debate took place at 4 pm on a Friday—that was when we had the Adjournment debate in those days—and I quoted Ernest Marples, who said in 1968:
	“there is a great future for the bicycle if you make the conditions right. If you make them wrong there isn’t any future.”
	I presented the Minister who was replying, Denis Howell, with a cyclists charter: a bicycle unit in his Department; cycle lanes through the royal parks; more proficiency courses for children; a direction from the Department that, in all new development, provision should be made not just for the cyclist of today, but to encourage the cyclist of tomorrow, by separating his journey from that of the motorist; the identification of cycle priority routes; a 10-second start at traffic lights; and more provision for bicycles on trains, with more covered parking spaces at stations.
	Unlike what is going to happen today, the response from the Minister was disappointing. My suggestions were described by the then Minister as “interesting”. This was before the time of “Yes Minister”, but I knew enough about Whitehall to realise that “interesting” meant “absurd.” The very first point he made was that cycling was dangerous, and I am afraid that that coloured the whole response to the debate.
	I was told that differential timing at traffic lights would be a costly operation, and the Minister did not know how the motoring public would take to it. Although British Rail was a nationalised industry at the time, the Minister washed his hands of the idea, saying that he
	hoped I would do better with my campaign than Ministers. On cycle lanes—or traffic lanes, as he called them—I was told it was difficult to provide them in the middle of Birmingham, Manchester or London. On a cycling unit, he said:
	“I cannot accede to the request that my Department should set up a separate cycling advisory unit…We already have a traffic advisory unit.”—[Official Report, 11 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 1026.]
	Undeterred by this response, Anthony Steen and I set up a parliamentary bicycle pool, years ahead of Boris. For £5, Members could join and borrow a bicycle for their journey around the capital. We had a good response, particularly for the photo opportunity in New Palace Yard which launched the scheme. Jo Grimond was good enough to join us. Members who had not been on a bike since they did a delivery round took again to two wheels.
	It was not an unqualified success. At midday, Members would take out a bicycle and cycle off to their lunch. Owing to the generosity of the hospitality extended by their hosts, on a few occasions they did not return by bicycle, and my fleet had to be retrieved from London’s finest eating establishments. In 1979, when there was a change of Government and I became a Minister, I could not find anyone to run the pool. So, in the first of the Thatcher privatisations, we sold the pool to the Members.
	We have some way to go before we reach the status of Holland, which I visited along with the APPG a few years ago. There, a typical cyclist was a mature lady in ordinary clothes bicycling slowly—the exact opposite in every respect of a typical cyclist in London, although that is beginning to change.
	I agree with what the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) said about joined-up government and the benefits to other Departments of a regeneration of cycling, including on climate change, obesity and cutting the cost of travel.

Nia Griffith: I very much agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about encouraging people who might not see themselves as Lycra cyclists to take part. Although we all want dedicated cycle areas and tracks, lone cyclists can feel very vulnerable along some of those made from back lanes or railway tracks. Does he agree that in the cycle delivery plan we need to examine strategies for increased visibility in those areas, so that young women in particular do not feel afraid of using them?

George Young: The hon. Lady makes a good point; better lighting is important not only for the security of the cyclist, but so that they can see what is on the path ahead of them. I am sure the Minister will focus on safety in his reply.
	From the modest acorn we planted 40 years ago, today’s all-party group has grown and gone from strength to strength. Today’s debate is better informed and better supported; only three Back-Bench speeches were made back then. I commend the campaign and the support it has received from all sides, and I can think of no better Minister to respond than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the former pairing Whip.

Ian Austin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Young: That was a peroration, but I give way to the chairman of the all-party group.

Ian Austin: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, I wanted to thank him, on behalf of the group and all Members here, and to recognise the enormous contribution he has made in Parliament to cycling throughout his time as an MP. He has achieved a huge amount, his work has been an inspiration to the rest of us and we are very grateful for it.

George Young: I blush and I sit down.

Ben Bradshaw: I am honoured and humbled to follow the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). The bicycle has been my main form of transport for at least the past 20 years, as it has his. It has been the only form of transport I have owned for that period. Having cycled as a child, it was logical for me to use the bike as my main form of transport, given the growing congestion in our towns and cities. The revelatory experience for me—the eureka moment—came in the mid-90s, when I was sent by “The World This Weekend” to my old primary school in Norfolk. I cannot remember what the news piece was about—whether it was about stranger danger, the safety of roads or even growing obesity—but I arrived at my old primary school to find that the bike sheds had gone. That was a shocking experience for me. Not only had the sheds gone, but in place of children coming and going by biking or walking at the beginning and end of the school day, there was traffic congestion, belching fumes, noise and chaos outside the school gates. From that moment on, I have not felt as passionate about many issues, across all public policy, as I do about this one.
	Things do not have to be like they were at that school. I am glad to say that in Exeter we have bike sheds again at our primary and secondary schools. Thanks to the investment we received as part of the previous Labour Government’s cycling demonstration town scheme, we have had a massive increase in the number of children cycling and walking to school—one of the biggest increases anywhere in the country—and a huge increase of 40% in cycling levels overall. I ask those who still do not believe that we can replicate Danish and Dutch cycling levels because ours is a hilly country to come to Exeter, one of the hilliest cities in the country. We have done it. We know how it can be done, although we have a lot more to do.
	The problem is that under successive Governments—I do not want this to be a party political debate—the approach taken to cycling has been a piecemeal hotch-potch; we have had a bit of funding here, a bit of targeted funding there and a grant that has to be applied for. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, progress has been bedevilled by the fact that there has not been sustained, real investment and sustained political leadership from the top.

Kerry McCarthy: I hesitate to interrupt my right hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech. I recently visited a Bikeability scheme
	at a local primary school in Bristol, where children are being trained and encouraged to feel safe on the roads. Does he share my concern that we are not putting enough money into Bikeability schemes and that doing so would be a huge step towards encouraging more people to cycle?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I do share that concern. I agree with my hon. Friend, who has put her finger on another important element—education, getting people cycling early and giving people the confidence to cycle. I am fortunate that in my constituency we still have a local authority that is committed to Bikeability, but, again, the service around the country is patchy because there is no sustained funding. Heaven knows, we all know what funding pressures local government is under at the moment.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend’s city has very good cycling facilities and routes, and needs to be commended for that. Does he accept that there is a slight problem, in that primary school children can be excited about cycling and encouraged to enjoy it—some primary schools do good work on that—but in secondary schools cycling becomes impossible because of bad facilities or longer journeys, or simply because it is “uncool”? We lose a lot of cyclists in the crucial teenage years and they do not come back, so somehow or other we have to do a lot more to get young teenagers and teenagers in general to keep on cycling.

Ben Bradshaw: I am sure my hon. Friend is right in what he says, although it has not been my experience in Exeter. Helped by the fantastic success of our professional cycling teams in the Olympics, cycling is now very cool and there has been a big upsurge in cycling among teenagers in my constituency. However, that is mainly because there are safe routes to the schools and facilities for people to lock their bikes and store their stuff when they get there. I am sorry to say that that is not common across the country.
	It was in that context, after all the years of hard work by people such as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, that the all-party group, supported by The Times, decided to carry out its investigation and report in 2013. We spent days listening to evidence from experts across the field on how to get to the sort of cycling levels enjoyed in most of our neighbouring and similar continental countries. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, this is not rocket science; it comes down to sustainable commitments for funding and sustainable, persistent cross-departmental Government leadership.
	What do we get today? A year late, we get a report that has been rushed out in time for this debate. I wanted to try to be kind about the report, which I had time to read before coming into the Chamber, but I cannot help agreeing with CTC, which has described it as “not a delivery plan” but a “derisory plan”. Once again, it is a hotch-potch of aspiration, which puts a lot of the responsibility on hard-pressed local authorities, on local enterprise partnerships—we have already heard that the record of LEPs is feeble at best, and they are also under a lot of pressure—and on business. That is deeply depressing and dispiriting, following all the debates we have had in this House, and the growing support
	among Members from all parts of this House and among the public for meaningful action to be taken on cycling. Seeing the report was one of the most depressing moments I have had in this House during this Parliament.
	Surely we do not need to remind the Government of cycling’s benefits for health, the environment, and tackling congestion and pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) reminded us about the health benefits alone. If we met the targets that our report set for 2025 of 10% of journeys by bike, up from a derisory 2% in England at the moment, we would save £8 billion in health expenditure. If we reached continental levels of 25% of journeys made by cycling by 2050, which was our other target, we would save £25 billion for the health service.
	Those are just the health benefits; they do not even take into account the additional benefits of tackling congestion and emissions. I do not understand what is wrong with the economists in the Department for Transport and the Treasury who do not recognise the logic of that. The Secretary of State, who I am pleased to see in his place, is a reasonable man. He was extolling the fantastic rail renaissance that we enjoyed in England in recent years. We could be having exactly the same renaissance in cycling if only there were the political will and a tiny bit of investment. All it would need is a fraction of the Department’s budget that is going on roads or on HS2 to be earmarked for cycling, and we could achieve that £10 per head per year figure, which would begin to deliver the cycling revolution we all want.
	Let me be perfectly frank: whatever one thinks of this Government report, the timing of its publication—in the last few months before a general election—probably means that the political parties’ manifestos for next May and who then forms the Government will matter much more. I want to make it clear, including to my own Front-Bench team, that there are a lot of cyclists out there and we should not underestimate the power of the cycling vote. Many towns and cities, from Brighton and Hove to Norwich, Cambridge, Oxford, my own city of Exeter and Bristol, will have hard-fought contests in marginal seats at the next election.

Caroline Lucas: The right hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way, especially as he has just mentioned Brighton and Hove. It gives me the opportunity to say that in Brighton and Hove we have the fastest growing cycle-to-work scheme outside London. Does he agree that what we need in today’s plan is far more focus on cycle-friendly design standards or guidance? We should be sharing such standards, and yet there is nothing in the plan to do or promote that. Therefore, current guidelines are very jumbled up, inconsistent and contradictory.

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is a good plan on the shelf in Wales, which the Department for Transport could simply use. There are far too many different plans, which need to be brought together in one single plan.

Robert Goodwill: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to page 8 of the plan in which it talks about sharing best practice? It says that we will
	“create a single point of information about the best practice for creating and designing cycle-friendly streets.”
	That is in the plan and we are determined to ensure that best practice is shared among local authorities, which have ownership of the roads.

Ben Bradshaw: That was not the view of the cycling organisations this morning in their initial response to the plan.
	Let me finish with this message to my Front Benchers and political parties across the spectrum. There are millions of cyclists out there, and they are waiting for real and meaningful action on cycling to deliver safe cities and a healthy environment, tackle obesity, increase happiness and boost the economy. It is a no-brainer for very little money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) will take that message back to the shadow Secretary of State, who I know is a committed cyclist, and to his shadow Treasury colleagues.

Maria Miller: I congratulate the all-party parliamentary group on securing today’s debate and the Minister on his cycling delivery plan, which he has published today.
	The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) struck rather a sour note to start this debate. I think the House will want to applaud the Minister for his new report. He makes clear that he wants to double the level of cycling by 2025. His aspiration, in difficult financial times, is for funding for cycling to be the equivalent of £10 per person per year. That is a key recommendation from the all-party report.
	It is absolutely right that we have this debate. From my work around the Olympic legacy, I know that the London 2012 Olympics inspired a generation to think about sport, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of cycling. The extraordinary achievements of individuals such as Sarah Storey and David Stone at the London 2012 Paralympics demonstrated that cycling can be one of the most inclusive of sports, too.
	The Olympics, Paralympics and Tour de France have all done their bit in driving up pedal traffic by almost a quarter. An extra 400,000 people cycling every week since we won the Olympic bid is an extraordinary part of the Olympic legacy. That has been achieved despite the pressures on budgets, which Opposition Members sometimes fail to acknowledge.

Ian Austin: We are asking not for more money to be spent on transport but for a small part of the existing transport budget to be spent on cycling. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that the report contains aspirations, but without any financial commitment attached to them, they are just an ambition, not a commitment. That is the point that we are trying to make.

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman needs to study the Minister’s report a little more closely. A consultation paper will shortly be published on the £976 million a year highways maintenance fund, to ensure that a fair share goes to cycling and walking, which is exactly what he is talking about. I appreciate that he has not had
	much time to read the report, but I urge him to look at the detail, because he will be pleased with the content.

Julian Huppert: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are words in the report about the maintenance budget, and we certainly welcome that, but that is not the same as a new infrastructure, which is desperately needed.

Maria Miller: I agree that cycling infrastructure is important. It is an important way of communicating to people that cycling is a safe option. I will address that later in my comments.
	I can think of no better way to spend a Sunday afternoon than on my bike with my son on the lanes and off-road cycle routes around Basingstoke. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and I both know, Hampshire is blessed with 750 miles of off-road cycle routes and urban cycle paths. Cyclists are getting everywhere. This year, for the first time, St John Ambulance is using cycle responders at festivals across Hampshire. In Basingstoke, our local police effectively use mountain bikes for town centre patrols and to help police work around parks and other public areas.

Bob Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Maria Miller: I should like to make a little more progress, as I fear that I might run out of time.
	As a result of more people cycling, the figures show a decline in the risk of having an accident when cycling. But the absolute number of accidents and tragic fatalities remains a real concern for anyone who cycles regularly, or who has a friend or family member who has been in a cycling accident. There is still so much more to be done to make cycling safer and a real option for more people.
	I wish to focus on two areas of the all-party group’s report, namely road design and education, which are key to achieving the Minister’s ambitions. We need to design cycling into our everyday lives. Like many successful towns, Basingstoke faces the big problem of road congestion. I thank the Minister and his Department, especially the Secretary of State, for the investments that they have made recently in our local roads in Basingstoke. More than £30 million has been spent on improving the roundabouts for which Basingstoke is so famous. I must say though that that investment should have been put in place a decade and a half ago when the Labour party set high housing targets for Basingstoke. That money is there not to allow cars to move around more easily, but to reduce traffic congestion. Encouraging more people to cycle and indeed to walk is part of achieving that strategy.
	The Prime Minister himself has made it clear that all new big road developments will incorporate the needs of cyclists, which was underlined in the Government’s delivery plan today. Like many other communities, we have a persuasive group of cycling campaigners. In particular, I pay tribute to my constituent Ms Heather Rainbow for her tenacity and campaigning zeal. For any campaign to work, we need practical changes in the roads. Nationally, two-thirds of non-cyclists think it is just too dangerous to cycle on roads; indeed almost half of all cyclists think that too. Changing road design will
	help change that attitude and encourage more people to cycle. We cannot allow new road designs simply to reflect the current pattern of use.

Nicholas Soames: rose—

Maria Miller: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I will make a little more progress.
	The all-party report is right that the needs of cyclists and pedestrians must be considered at an early stage of all new development schemes. It is of course for local authorities to lead the way on local road design—it is not for central Government to micro-manage. Under the national planning guidelines, local authorities have to consider how bikes and bike use can be designed into new road works from the start, which is very much in line with the all-party report.
	There is one area in which the Minister can help. The Highways Agency is part of his Department and responsible for some of the most important road redesign schemes. In my own constituency, the Highways Agency has already started work on a £10 million upgrade of the Black Dam roundabout to ease congestion. The new design is the result of considerable consultation with local residents, but because the pre-existing road layout made cycling difficult, few cyclists regularly choose to use that junction.
	I hope the Minister agrees that if we are to change habits we need organisations such as the Highways Agency to be not only reactive to current travel patterns, but proactive in promoting cycling. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he makes his contribution later.
	Let me turn now to education, which, along with road design, is absolutely critical and part of the all-party group’s report. Edmund King is president of the AA, which, I am proud to say, has made its home in Basingstoke. In the 1990s, he and I first worked together on the successful road safety campaign “Children should be seen and not hurt”. He is right to describe cycle training as a “skill for life”. It is interesting to note that only one in four AA members who regularly cycle has received such skills training. As adults, we often do not feel confident enough to get on our bikes. It is that sort of training that can be vital. I pay tribute to Breeze in my constituency, which is helping more women into cycling, and to Hampshire county council, which funds two hours of free cycle skills training for all Hampshire residents.
	Many of us will fondly remember cycling to school, of course after taking our cycling proficiency test, today’s equivalent of which is the Bikeability programme. That modern-day version of cycling proficiency is made available to all Hampshire schools through the Hampshire schools cycling partnership. I hope that more local authorities will develop such a partnership to encourage more children to understand the pleasures of cycling from a young age.
	One of my earliest memories of cycling is not a good one. My grandmother cycled to work every day. She was a fit and energetic woman, but one day she was hit by a car. Of course she was not wearing a helmet—few people did in the early ’70s—and she had severe concussion and her injuries stayed with her. That dreadful incident
	has meant that I have always worn a cycle helmet and ensured that my children understand the importance of doing so.
	For a number of years, I have worked closely with an organisation called Headway in Basingstoke. It was founded in 1982 by an inspirational lady, Evelyn Vincent, and her mother. Headway supports head injury victims, and the individuals with head trauma whom I have met make a compelling case for the wearing of cycle helmets. Headway, as a campaigning organisation, has succeeded in making the case for cycle helmets to be a legal requirement for children in Jersey. Other countries have done the same, and I would make the case that the Government should have a clear plan to keep the evidence around wearing cycle helmets under close review. There is clear evidence from the Transport Research Laboratory and the Australian Government that, along with road design and education, the wearing of cycle helmets can make a real contribution to road safety. It makes common sense, too, and although some say that it deters people from taking up cycling, I have seen no evidence that makes that case specifically for children. We all have a duty to ensure that cycling is safer, so the Government should keep the matter under careful review in the coming months and years.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who made powerful points about not only her constituency, but general cycling matters. As I look around the Chamber, it is apparent that we are talking to the converted. I think that I have seen almost every Member in the Chamber riding their bike into Parliament, so I do not think that there will be a lot of controversy in the debate. Those watching our proceedings—many from the cycling community may well be—might be a bit disappointed that this is one-way traffic, but we need to be able to argue the case for cycling, so perhaps that is not a bad thing.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to take place and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the co-chairs of the all-party group, on their work. They and the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has also signed the motion, have shown great leadership on promoting cycling, and the cross-party group is ably supported by Adam Coffman. Many Members are in the Chamber to support the debate. I also welcome support from right across the media, especially from The Times. There was a great fact sheet by Kaya Burgess in this morning’s drop-in briefing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North mentioned Mary Bowers, who was knocked down in my constituency. Sadly, she still has not recovered, and I know that the whole House will want to wish her and her family well.

Julian Huppert: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says about The Times and Mary Bowers. He might be amused to know that The Daily Telegraph recently published a list of the seven most absurd Liberal Democrat policies, one of which was supporting funding for cycling, so there is clearly some way to go.

Jim Fitzpatrick: As a buyer as well as a reader of The Daily Telegraph, I am disappointed to hear that, although perhaps not entirely surprised, as there have to be some differences among people. Despite the hon. Gentleman’s qualification of what I said about media support, there is now generally a much more welcoming attitude in the country to cycling, and I hope that the debate will help to nurture people’s interest.

Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman has never seen me arrive at the Palace of Westminster on a bicycle, although I shall try to repair that. I agree with him about the support that is given, but does he accept that the trouble in a constituency such as mine, which has three small to medium-sized towns, is that there simply is not the money to provide the facilities for bicyclists that should be in place, because it all tends to go to the big towns? We need to devise a formula that will enable that to be fixed.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the key issue of funding, which I think has cropped up in every speech that we have heard. When I said that I thought that I had seen almost everyone in the Chamber on a bike, I did not want to point to the right hon. Gentleman that he was the one exception who occurred to me. However, I am encouraged that he has not given up on this, so in the six months between now and the general election, perhaps we can encourage him to join us on two wheels. I am sure that the all-party group would welcome that.
	The delivery plan is disappointing. The all-party group’s report was well received by the Department for Transport. It is a shame that the Secretary of State has just left the Chamber, but the fact that he has listened to part of our debate demonstrates his interest in the matter. We know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), are great champions of cycling and no criticism is levelled directly at the Department, although I shall return to the big question of funding later in my speech. However, given that the Prime Minister promised us a cycling revolution and that the Department for Transport is clearly supportive of cycling, as has been the case for almost 20 years, the fact that there is no commitment on funding, which the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) mentioned, is hugely disappointing. While the Minister and the shadow Minister are great champions, we need a nominated person to give leadership from the front. The all-party group’s report was well received by the Transport Committee and all the main cycling groups, but I am sure that the Minister acknowledges that the responses of CTC, Sustrans and British Cycling to this morning’s Government report are not so welcoming.
	Safety and the perception of it are key to getting more people involved in cycling, but before I speak about that, I want to spend a couple of minutes on parochial matters by talking about London. There have been huge changes in London, with an explosion in the number of people cycling, Boris bikes and cycle super-highways. It is welcome that Transport for London is consulting on upgrading the cycle super-highways because some of them are pretty basic, being no more than a lick of paint in the road.

Zac Goldsmith: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome TfL’s recent call for a London-wide ban on heavy goods vehicles that drive without side guards and mirrors? Does he agree that that recommendation should apply nationwide, not just to London, and that the Government should take it up?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. TfL has led on promoting cycling in many ways, and anything that enhances cyclists’ safety must be welcomed.
	I received an e-mail this morning from Owen Pearson of Tower Hamlets Wheelers. He said that his local cycle campaign supports
	“the proposals put forward by Transport for London to upgrade Cycle Superhighway 2 between Aldgate and Bow”,
	which is a dangerous stretch of road. The e-mail acknowledged the local concerns of the council and others, especially with regard to Whitechapel market, but said that the group believed that
	“with adjustments to the TfL plan these issues can be overcome.”
	I have some concerns about what I call the Mayor’s plans, although they are probably primarily the tsar’s plans—Andrew Gilligan’s plans—especially with regard to the stretch from Tower Hill to Westminster. The key criteria for cycle lanes is to get people out of cars and to improve the environment by reducing congestion. However, the proportion of cars on that stretch of road is already less than 9%, and many of those 9% are private hire vehicles or minicabs. There are few people to be taken out of cars as the vast majority of the traffic on that main artery through London is made up of public transport, taxis, coaches and commercial traffic, such as white vans delivering to businesses and HGVs. TfL plans to prevent 80% of that traffic using the road. I do not know where it will go. For the 20% that will be allowed to use it, there will be a 16-minute delay. That simply does not seem workable, and it will give the cycling community a bad reputation, because it is just bad planning.
	My understanding is that the Mayor’s plans will be subject to an extensive consultation, which would be very welcome, as would publication of all the background data, including environmental impact assessments, the economic assessment, alternative routes and alternative designs.
	There is also a problem with the waiting times for pedestrians, because in some areas they will have to wait up to two minutes before getting a green light, and in London people will simply not wait that long to cross the road. Also, having to cross three lanes of traffic and four lanes of cyclists, with a fast lane for the Lycra brigade—we know that they take no prisoners—will be pretty difficult. Another observation about the plan that the Department for Transport published this morning is that its title makes no mention of walking, which is a big element of the promotion, so there are questions to be answered about the route from Tower Hill to Westminster.
	We all want to see cycling become mainstream. As a cyclist myself, I know that we are not above criticism. The tiny minority who cycle without lights at night, ignore pedestrian crossings, ride on pavements or cruise through red lights greatly annoy the rest of us, because they give us a bad reputation and irritate the rest of the
	public. The Transport Committee heard in evidence that when the Metropolitan police blitzed London’s roads earlier this year, following the spate of five deaths in November 2013, they issued 14,000 fixed penalty notices for transgressions at major junctions in London—10,000 to vehicle drivers and 4,000 to cyclists. That demonstrates that there are drivers and cyclists who break the law.
	However, what we need is enforcement. CTC makes the point that the reduction in the number of traffic officers in all constabularies across the country is moving in the wrong direction. As I mentioned earlier, cyclists are the most vulnerable. The Transport Committee’s third report of the Session, entitled “Cycling Safety”, makes recommendations for improving safety for cyclists.
	Right hon. and hon. Members have made the case well for cycling and cycling safety. The Minister is very much pro-cycling. It is even more disappointing, therefore, that we have not heard a commitment on funding. The Prime Minister promised a cycling revolution and the Department for Transport is promising to support cycling, so No. 11 is the roadblock. Somehow we have to get underneath No. 11, turn the Chancellor around and then use the autumn statement and the Budget to commit to that funding. All parties can use their manifestos next year to commit funding for cycling, because without funding it simply will not happen.

Julian Huppert: I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to schedule this debate. It is the third such debate we have had, so it is now becoming an annual tradition. I understand that means it must now happen every year for ever, and I look forward to that. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who speaks persuasively, as ever, on this matter. It is also a pleasure to swap roles with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), with whom I have worked on cycling for over four years now, along with all the other members of the all-party group. I pay particular tribute, as other Members have done, to Adam Coffman for his work promoting the benefits of cycling for transport, leisure and sport. I am delighted that our “Get Britain Cycling” report has been welcomed so widely, having been formally supported by the House last year and in the speeches we have heard today.
	On Monday morning the traffic in Cambridge was atrocious. It was far worse than usual because it was raining and some of the people who normally cycle to work—although, far from all of them—decided to drive instead. The system simply could not cope with the added demand. Imagine what would happen if our current rate of cycling—in Cambridge, up to a third of trips for work or education are by bike—went down. We would have far worse congestion every single day. Imagine what would happen if we could boost the amount of cycling or walking. We would see greater benefits for those who drive.
	When we talk about the benefits of cycling, we are talking about benefits not only for those of us who cycle, but everyone else. As James May from “Top Gear” has said:
	“The benefits to driving if people ride bicycles is that there is more space for driving. I would say that the roads belong to everybody”.
	I do not know what Jeremy Clarkson’s response to that was, but I know that the president of the Automobile Association, Edmund King, has said that cycling investment
	“would bring tangible business and economic benefits by reducing congestion, absenteeism, NHS costs and by producing a more creative and active work force”.
	It is true that there are benefits for cyclists, and of course many people cycle, walk, drive and take trains and buses at different times, but cycling is also a reliable, cheap and fun way to get around. It keeps us healthier and is far easier to fit into a day than a trip to the gym.
	There are also wider benefits, such as the environmental and economic benefits. John Allan, chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, has told us that getting more people cycling would help
	“both the health of the high street as well as the nation”.
	There are also huge financial benefits, such as £128 million a year in reduced absenteeism, and a 20% increase in cycling levels could save a few hundred million pounds in reduced congestion and a slightly smaller amount of about £100 million through lower pollution levels.
	There are massive benefits for health. Getting people cycling or walking has huge benefits for our NHS. If we get more people engaged in active transport, obesity levels go down, life expectancy goes up and pressures on the NHS go down. The recent study from Lovelace and Woodcock—the hon. Member for Dudley North referred to this—in Leeds and Cambridge respectively, estimated that if we achieved our “Get Britain Cycling” targets, we would save around 80,000 disability-adjusted life years per year in 2025, and about 300,000 per year by 2050. That is a huge factor. That is 30,000 years from reduced heart disease alone, and more from reduced strokes, diabetes and cancer. Let us not forget mental health, because cycling also reduces depression. That is how we get to figures that equate to somewhere between £2 billion and £6 billion a year in benefits by 2025. If we get to the Dutch or Danish level, that will equate to a benefit to the NHS of around £17 billion a year.
	There is therefore a really strong case for investing in cycling. That is why we called for an investment of £10 per person per year, rising to £20. It seems a pretty easy case: invest half a billion pounds a year in England and get between £2 billion and £6 billion a year in health costs, plus billions in other benefits. That is why we have business support. John Cridland, director general of the CBI, has called for a
	“major effort to expand a dedicated cycle network”.
	It is not just a handful of people speaking about this. It seems obvious. The case has been made by so many organisations. I pay tribute to The Times for its “Cities fit for cycling” and its support for our inquiry and report. I also pay particular tribute to Chris Boardman, an excellent national cycling champion.
	Why has it not happened? There has been some extra investment in this Parliament, which is welcome, even though it is in the form of specific pockets of money, rather than the sustained investment that is needed. The local sustainable transport fund has been helpful as far as it goes. However, our key call is for sustained investment. That is what we were looking for in the cycling delivery plan published this morning.

Nicola Blackwood: Oxford, like Cambridge, is a very congested city. It is filled with cycling enthusiasts and many community
	groups that campaign for change in that area. Indeed, over 4,000 people signed the petition for the cycling route along the B4044. Does the hon. Gentleman share their concern that this is about not only the absolute amount of money available for investment, but ensuring that the money is accessible to community groups and local councils when they need it?

Julian Huppert: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that point, and indeed that cycle route, which I have been to see—I know how much it is needed, because it is not a very nice road otherwise. The money has to be available for community groups; it cannot simply be driven from the top down.
	There are good things in the plan. There are some encouraging words and good proposals—solid stuff that responds to our recommendations. The Government’s ambition to double cycling by 2025 is welcome, although it does not go as far as we would like it to, or as Parliament has voted for. I welcome the Government’s statement of its commitment to giving people a realistic choice to cycle, which is an important principle.
	However, the report does not provide the money needed to actually make a difference. It states:
	“The government’s aspiration is that—working with local government, and businesses—we can together explore how we can achieve a minimum funding equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21—and sooner if possible.”
	That mentioned our starting figure of £10, but I am afraid that it is still pretty thin. It is an aspiration to explore funding, not even to ensure funding. We are not asking for much. The Department for Transport’s 2014-15 budget, counting revenue and capital together, comes to a total of £21.5 billion. Of course, much of that is accounted for, for example in schemes such as Crossrail, but £500 million is not a huge fraction of that and could make a huge difference to transport, health and the wider economy. It is a few per cent., or roughly on a par with the proportion of people who currently cycle, which is already too low. There is huge rail investment from this Government, which I welcome as the right thing to do, with billions of pounds properly invested, not just an aspiration to explore. There is £28 billion in road schemes—again, invested, not an aspiration to explore.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some continental cities such as Basle and Copenhagen have very good interchange facilities between cyclists and railway stations; in Britain, the situation is awful to poor. Does he think that any plan has to include a serious plan about proper, secure cycle parking and more efficient use of cycle parking space at stations?

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In Cambridge we are beginning work on a 3,000-place cycle park at the station because it is such an important thing to do, and the Government have supported that financially.
	Why are the Government not taking the obvious steps? Is it because of the “war on the motorist” concern exemplified by the Communities and Local Government Secretary? That would not make sense, because drivers
	benefit when people cycle. That is why the president of the AA and so many other people have supported our recommendations.

Ian Austin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Huppert: I am running out of time, so I am afraid I will not.
	Is it because of people trying to stir up conflict between cyclists and pedestrians? Again, surely not, because pedestrians benefit from provisions that help cyclists. That is why Living Streets, the pedestrians charity, has also supported our recommendations. The 20 mph zones, which have been supported by the Government, are beneficial for cyclists and for pedestrians. What is bad for pedestrians, and bad for cyclists, is poor road layouts and ill-though-through cheap solutions such as dual-use facilities which simply create conflict. Proper segregated facilities such as those we are implementing in Cambridge help pedestrians and cyclists.
	So why is this planning missing out so much on funding? Let me be optimistic. The plan is a draft with the aim of securing views over the next four weeks. Perhaps the Minister has a rabbit up his sleeve so that when the plan comes out in its final state—this autumn, apparently, though it feels like we are in autumn already—it will have a proper funding commitment. Perhaps that is his plan. Or perhaps the Chancellor got so excited by the compelling case for cycling that he has hogged all the money so as to be able to announce it in the autumn statement. I certainly hope for that, and we have been trying to press him to do it. Otherwise, I cannot understand why the Government are not acting.
	Let me give the Minister some other ideas, since the plan is a draft. Will he agree to adopt the “Making Space for Cycling” guide for developments and street renewals, which has detailed proposals on how to make those work? Will he look at ideas to expand the very successful Cycle to Work scheme to cover cycling to education so that students are able to get bikes through, for example, a VAT exemption? Will he look at approaches as the New York trial system that we are now pioneering in Cambridgeshire, whereby people can very quickly try things on the ground to get them to work? Will he meet the members and officers of the all-party cycling group to go through the plan in detail so that we make sure that the draft is improved before it comes out?
	This is the last opportunity for significant change before the general election. When we have next year’s annual debate—assuming that the Backbench Business Committee or a new House business committee is willing—it will be in a new Parliament, so what the parties commit to in the election will matter. My party, the Liberal Democrats, formally voted to adopt the “Get Britain Cycling” recommendations last year, and it is already written into our pre-manifesto. I am very pleased that that has happened. We have yet to see the same commitments from the other parties, despite the fact that there are people on both sides of the House who would like it to happen. I hope that all parties will write “Get Britain Cycling” into their manifesto commitments, because in that way we can be sure that whoever forms the next Government will continue and improve the efforts that have been made so far, implement the “Get Britain Cycling” recommendations, and make our streets better for people, whether they are cycling, walking, driving, or just living their lives.

Meg Hillier: As well as being active in the all-party group on cycling, I represent one of the boroughs with the best records on cycling in the country, with the highest percentage of people cycling to work of any London borough. A total of 14.6% of Hackney residents cycle to work, whereas the London average is 7%. The previous census showed that Hackney is the only place in the UK where more people commute by bike than by car, and 12.8% commute by car. The increase in cycling in Hackney over the years has been considerable. Between 1991 and 2001, cycling in Hackney grew by 70%, faster than anywhere else in the country—although it is probably fair to mention that we are working from a lower base than places such as Cambridge, Oxford or York.

Bob Stewart: The problem is that my constituency is quite a long way from London. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be really good if people were encouraged to take their bicycles on the train, or if there were facilities on the train, even during the rush hour, so that they could do the combination of cycle-train-cycle-work, and the reverse?

Meg Hillier: I completely agree. I am tempted to go on a diversionary rant about how badly trains are designed for cyclists. One of the things that has burgeoned in Hackney is use of the Brompton bike. I am advertising a brand, but it is a very good brand. It is a British-made bike that has been one of the ways in which people get around the challenges of cycling. As I am now on this sideways rant, let me also say that there are the wrong types of limitations. I look to the Minister on this. Transport for London does good work on this and in other areas, but there are minimum limits on what it needs to do at stations. The same applies to National Rail. Stations do not meet the needs of cyclists who want to leave their bike at the station at either end. Trains and parking at stations are important issues, but if I talked about those it would divert me from my speech.
	In 2001, the cycling rate in Hackney was much lower, with nearly 7% of working residents commuting by bike—not just cycling but commuting. The growth between 2001 and 2011 was incredible. One of the things we identified in the “Get Britain Cycling” report was the importance of political leadership in ensuring that cycling is promoted. I point both Front Benchers towards the example of Hackney. I pay tribute to our mayor, Jules Pipe, to the current cabinet member for this area, Councillor Feryal Demirci, and to her predecessor, Vincent Stops, who remains a champion of cycling. All the councillors in Hackney put bike first in their thinking. As the all-party group, we had an opportunity to cycle around Hackney with some of the council’s planning officers and Councillor Demirci to see for ourselves how they “think bike” at every stage. They do not just “think bike” but “think pedestrian” on things such as accessible streets. It is often little measures such as taking away the barriers at junctions and improving signposting on quieter side routes that have made a difference regarding the exponential growth in the number of people who cycle in Hackney.
	Hackney also promotes free cycle training for adults and children, which, even with the tight financial situation, has made a difference. Let me speak up for middle-aged
	women everywhere who cycle slowly in their ordinary clothes—or, as I famously said in the summer, “pootle”. I certainly pootle. I should stress, given the Twitter-storm that ensued afterwards, that I am not speaking for every woman. I pootle slowly in my ordinary clothes. I am well aware that many women wish to go fast in Lycra, but that is not for me; I do not quite have the figure for it, for a start. A lot of cyclists do not want to go fast, hammering down the streets. Hackney works to try to signpost people down quiet side roads that suit them. That is very important, because aggressive cyclists can be as off-putting to people as bad traffic, noise and pollution.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) wanted to intervene, but he was simply praising the approach that Hackney has taken.
	Cyclists in Hackney have always been a very active and vocal group. Hackney council has worked very closely with the Hackney cycling campaign, which has 1,000 members. We have the largest membership of a cycling campaign in any London borough. The borough has not rested there—it has looked at why people do not cycle. These are messages that we could be learning nationally. This does not all cost a great deal of money. People who do not cycle tend to be poor and living in places where they cannot store bikes, so the council has promoted storage, with a private company providing bike lockers on estates where former pram sheds have been removed.
	As I said, training is free. There is buddying-up with a cyclist for those who want to go on a particular route. As a middle-aged woman who cycles slowly in my ordinary clothes, going out with a professional trainer and good regular cyclist has been revelatory. One has to do it only once to remember what to do and take the road more confidently. I cycled all my life until I moved back to London, and then felt a bit scared about it. When I got back in the saddle, that help made me feel confident. I urge the timid people out there to take up these opportunities.
	Hackney has set a lead in doing this because of its political leadership, and the Minister has that opportunity, but the lead also needs to come from elsewhere. We have called for a cycling champion. We need somebody—a cycling tsar, or whatever we want to call them—who “talks bike” and gives a high profile to the issue so that Ministers in other Departments have to think about it too. It is not just a matter for the Department for Transport; it is also for the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health.
	The leader of Ealing council—I am sure he will not mind my saying this—has spoken very passionately about how he had a health warning a few years ago. He needed to lose weight and had other health problems. He got on his bike, and that alone solved his health problems and made the difference. He is now passionate about making his London borough as good as Hackney, in time.
	Planning has to be built in from day one. Whenever I speak about cycling, people often write to me to say, “It’s terrible that you’re not talking about segregation every step of the way.” Segregation certainly has an important part to play; as other Members have said, it would be very difficult to cycle along some roads without segregation. Realistically, however, it is not possible in a city such as London to have segregated cycle paths
	everywhere, all at once, overnight. We are not asking the Minister for that, because it is clear that he would rule it out on financial grounds alone. Hackney’s approach has been to find little ways that make a difference, such as placing a bollard here or there to make it easier for pedestrians, buggies and cyclists to get through. We have to look at this in the round.
	I want to touch briefly on the Mayor of London’s transport policy, particularly the cycle super-highway along the very busy Whitechapel road neighbouring my constituency. One proposal is to carve through the pavement in order to narrow it to 2.5 metres, which is about the same size as an average side street, and require pedestrians to cross the cycle super-highway to get to the bus stop. That is bonkers. We have to make sure that, in the attempt to improve cycling, cyclists are not pitted against pedestrians.
	I am ambivalent about the question of whether cycle super-highways are the answer. I think there is merit to them in some places, but one of the key things is how they will join up, which is a wider national issue. Good things could be happening in two separate boroughs, but if a bit in the middle does not work very well—there could be a dangerous gap or junction or a narrow busy road—that will put people off. We need political leadership from a champion in Whitehall who will bang heads together if there is such a problem. It does not have to involve money; a Minister could influence the situation by putting pressure on local government when it does not deliver.
	Hackney has benefited from reducing and slowing traffic through measures such as humps, parking zones, improving junctions—which remains the biggest challenge in any city, particularly London—and, as I mentioned earlier, assigning quieter routes off main roads. In fact, it is possible to cycle around the backstreets of Hackney and rarely meet a moving car. That is what gives me the confidence to cycle slowly in my own little way.
	Hackney’s approach has been incremental and consistent. That is what has really made the difference. It has not been a stop-start process. The census figures indicate that Hackney has been doing it solidly for the decade the mayor of Hackney has been leader. He has shown determination to put cyclists first.
	I am using Hackney as a proxy for what could happen nationally. With the right attitude and by using the money that both local and central Government already provide for cycling, a lot can be done. The little more money that we would ultimately like to see—that is our aspiration—would speed things up and make sure that the gaps were filled. More can be achieved even without that money, but it is ultimately down to the Minister to make sure that that vision for cycling across the country is championed and that local government is pushed into making sure that it thinks bike every step of the way.

Jason McCartney: I wanted to speak in this debate not only because, as a member of the all-party group on cycling, I sat on the report panel, but because I am a cyclist myself.
	Cycling is booming in the Colne and Holme valleys and Lindley in my parliamentary constituency, not least because of the amazing spectacle that was the Tour de France in Yorkshire; it also went through Cambridge, of course. On a sunny Sunday in July, the world’s eyes were on Chris Froome and the peloton as they whizzed down into Huddersfield from Ainley Top and glided through the Holme valley before tackling the gruelling climb up Holme Moss. It was at the foot of that climb that my family watched the race outside my mum and dad’s house.
	The tour legacy is clear to see. My local Kirklees council calculates that £10 has been generated in economic benefits for every £1 invested, but it is the cycling legacy I want to focus on. Holmfirth cycling club was set up shortly before the tour. It now has 259 members, a third of whom are women. It is the fastest growing club in the UK and it signed up more junior members than any other club during the Tour de France.

Bob Stewart: Such enthusiasm for cycling is also being generated by other sporting clubs. Beckenham rugby club now has the Beckenham rugby cyclists, which is brilliant. Let us keep encouraging that sort of thing.

Jason McCartney: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Cycling is a great way to see our beautiful countryside and to keep fit, so perhaps it provides a bit of alternative training for those rugby players.
	Holmfirth cycling club offers weekly mountain bike rides and midweek rides, and once a month there is a long weekend ride. There are also training sessions for young riders and adult cyclo-cross training.
	Streetbikes in Lockwood, led by the inspirational Gill Greaves, works with schools and community groups, teaching adults and children how to cycle. It also fixes unwanted bikes and donates them back into the community. Its projects are growing week on week. Some 50 people regularly turn up to “rock up and ride” events, and 80 people attended a mixed ability session last Thursday.

Jim Cunningham: I appreciate what is happening inside and outside the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to encourage cycling. Are the clubs free or do they charge a levy?

Jason McCartney: Holmfirth cycling club is affiliated to British Cycling, so someone who joins British Cycling will be covered by all the insurances it provides. It is very good value—I think it costs about £20 for a year, which is not a huge amount for a whole year of cycling activities. Streetbikes is a local charity that refurbishes bikes donated by local companies and people and then gives them for free to people on low incomes in our community. It is a great scheme. At the Streetbikes cycling festival in August, 40 free recycled and refurbished bikes were given away and Streetbikes offered repairs and advice to riders.
	There are 11 cycling organisations across Kirklees, including Streetbikes and other community groups. They offer various disciplines, such as BMX and mountain biking, track cycling, cyclo-cross, time trials and many more.
	My part of the world is now looking forward to the Tour of Yorkshire on 1 to 3 May 2015. The routes will be announced in early 2015, but we hope they will grace my patch once again. The event is being organised by
	Welcome to Yorkshire and the Amaury Sport Organisation, the organisers of the Tour de France, and it will be backed by British Cycling. There will be three full stages over the three days, a women’s race and a mass participation event. That has inspired cyclists of all ages and abilities to get out on their bikes. The legacy continues. I congratulate Huddersfield New College student Gabz Cullaigh on being selected to represent GB in the junior road race squad at the recent world championships.
	It is because of that enthusiasm for cycling that I back the recommendations of the “Get Britain Cycling” report and urge further action, not only by the Government, but by local councils and communities. On the specific recommendations, we need to redesign our roads and streets. Anyone who has, like me, tackled the chipping-laden road from Lockwood to Honley, where I live, will know of the urgent need for a proper cycle lane. I love cycling on the Meltham greenway, which is on a disused railway line, and we need more of such shared space. The needs of cyclists and pedestrians must be considered during planning applications.
	Cycling needs to be safe; it can be dangerous and speed is often the culprit. We need to extend 20 mph speed limits in towns and villages, and consider limits on rural lanes. Good HGV cab design, giving drivers better sightlines, is an absolute must.
	I have already mentioned Streetbikes. Let us give it funding for training and education at all primary and secondary schools in my area, and for other free training. Cycling is a healthy activity and it is good for our environment. Good progress is already being made. As of last autumn, 94% of primary schools and a fifth of secondary schools in Yorkshire had Bikeablity training sessions. Let us make more progress.
	Gary Verity has become an inspirational figure in Yorkshire after his superb leadership in bidding for and running the successful Tour de France in Yorkshire. Let us have a national cycling champion and ask local councils to appoint a lead figure so that we know who to go to. They do not necessarily have to be a politician, but they should be someone who is responsible locally for all local cycling.
	Let us spend at least £10 per head of the population on funding for cycling. On that note, I acknowledge that the Department for Transport has made significant investments in cycling, spending almost double the amount spent in the last five years of the previous Administration. Nearly all the projects being funded by the Department’s £600 million local sustainable transport fund now contain a cycling element. The Bikeability cycle training grant provides further funding of up to £40 per child training place, with training for a minimum of 600,000 children. I particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that funding will be extended into 2015-16. During the lifetime of this Parliament, £374 million of Government funds have already been committed directly towards cycling, but I want there to be more.

Michael Ellis: My hon. Friend is talking about the Government’s investment in cycling. Does he agree that potholes are of great concern to cyclists? Although it is good that the Government have put a lot of funds into improving our roads, including £200 million in the last Budget, we always need more funding to reduce the number of potholes and make cycling safer?

Jason McCartney: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a great point about potholes, which are the scourge of cyclists. One of the benefits of the Tour de France coming through my neck of the woods was the beautiful black tarmac carpet leading up into the hills. Constituents regularly asked me, “What is the exact route of the Tour de France, Mr McCartney?” and I just told them to follow the new tarmac. Filling in potholes is certainly important. My Kirklees council got more than £1.2 million from the local potholes fund, and I know how much that was appreciated.
	Finally, on a very serious note, I want to end by passing on my best wishes to my constituent John Radford and his family. On 29 July last year, John, an extremely fit and active husband, father and grandfather, returned from taking part in a 1,400 km cycle event, but two days later he was hit by a car in New Mill and suffered severe head injuries, which left him in a coma. He has been discharged from Leeds general infirmary into a specialist neurological respite centre in York. He is now very severely disabled. John is confined to a wheelchair and totally dependent on others, and will remain so for the rest of his life. The family, whom I have got to know very well indeed, are now looking for a home with specialist nursing care for him. A court case is scheduled to begin at Leeds Crown court on Monday 20 October. In honour of John Radford, I say, “Let’s get Britain cycling.”

Mark Lazarowicz: I, too, was a member of the panel of the all-party group on cycling that drew up “Get Britain Cycling”. Like other members of the panel, I am delighted at how its recommendations have stimulated debate, thought and ideas throughout the country.
	I should advise the House that I am also a member of the Lothian cycle campaign, Spokes, which has now been campaigning for cycling improvements throughout the Lothians for 37 years, which is one year longer than even the London Cycling Campaign. It is a very effective organisation.
	That is a good starting point for my speech, because I remember about 30 years ago that Spokes made a modest suggestion to the City of Edinburgh council, not for a network of cycle lanes but for just a cycle lane. The reaction of the then Conservative leader of the council—we have not had many of them for 30 years—was to make the famous retort:
	“Spokes can get lost and take its commie friends with it.”
	As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has pointed out, that kind of reaction was by no means unique to members of his party; it existed in my party as well.
	It is a reflection of how things have changed, that—with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whose remit does not run to Scotland—politicians of all colours are now vying to be cycling-friendly, which is good and reflects public pressure, concern and interest. That is also one reason why we have had real progress in many parts of the country.
	In Edinburgh, for example, the council agreed in 2012 to allocate 5% of its transport budget to cycling and to increase that 1% year on year. In spite of tight budgetary
	restraints, the council has done that. In this financial year, it is now spending 7% of its transport budget on cycling, which is possibly the highest anywhere in the UK.
	Despite the fact that there has been progress, everyone taking part in this debate knows that we have a long way to go throughout the UK to reach the levels of spending committed to cycling that we ought and need to have. In discussing the report, we have heard many concerns about the UK’s delivery plan announcing where the UK is going.
	I am afraid that the situation in Scotland is not markedly different. Until recently, the Scottish Government had been reducing spending on cycling. A few years ago, the excellent Pedal on Parliament campaign was established, and thousands of people rallied outside the Scottish Parliament to demand a change of Government policy. It has had an effect in that, certainly for a couple of years, spending on cycling in Scotland, which had gone down, went up and it exceeded the UK level until this year. I understand from cycling organisations, however, that the current Scottish Government budget has reduced the level of spending on cycling. That illustrates how campaigns need to continue and persist if there is to be the kind of step change on cycling policy that we need.

Neil Carmichael: In support of the “Get Britain Cycling” campaign, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to ensure that there is somewhere useful for people to leave their cycles when they go on public transport or on shopping expeditions, and that we should encourage such infrastructure across our towns and cities?

Mark Lazarowicz: Absolutely. That brings me to my next point. The experience in Scotland and of the UK indicates how pressure for action needs to be continued at all levels of government. I want to highlight some specific areas where that should be done, and the first is indeed the need for joined-up policies in the field of transport.
	One of my hon. Friends has already made the point about cycle-rail linkages. In Scotland, the new ScotRail franchise has been reallocated to the private sector by the Scottish Government, although some of us are not too keen about that. The winning franchisor is Abellio, a Dutch company, which has promised to bring to Scotland the type of rail-bike linkages that exist in the Netherlands. We will certainly hold it to account on that promise.
	When the Department allocates the franchise for the east coast main line—again, some of us wish it was not going to be allocated to the private sector, but that is obviously the Government’s intention—will the Minister ensure that one of the criteria is to look very seriously at the degree to which the bike-rail interface is implemented by whichever operator is eventually chosen?
	I am afraid that one specific place that is not a good example of a rail-bike interchange is Waverley station in Edinburgh, which is one of the country’s busiest stations. It is run by Network Rail which, for various reasons which may or may not be acceptable, has chosen to remove all vehicle access from the station. In so doing, it has removed access not just for motorised vehicles,
	but for bikes. People with bikes therefore have to fight their way along what is effectively a pedestrian ramp to get into the station. That is a classic example of how things are being done for cyclists on the trains going into the station and on the roads above the station, but, to put it mildly, there is not the kind of interface between cyclists and rail that there should be at that busy station. The Minister may be aware of that case. I certainly hope that he will look into it to try to resolve the difficulties that many people from my constituency and beyond have raised with me.
	One way in which we can support cycling is to ensure that it is given an adequate place and its rightful place in the priorities for big capital spending. The national infrastructure plan, which was adopted in the last couple of years, contains major commitments to new road building. Except in the margins, there is no such commitment for cycling or pedestrians. That should be looked at. That plan presents an opportunity to give cycling the boost that it needs.

Zac Goldsmith: I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has just said. However, does he not think that there is a slight risk in over-compartmentalising the funding? In all surveys of cyclists, there is an overwhelming consensus that the No. 1 priority is to deal with potholes and road surfaces to improve safety. However, that would never be regarded as cycling funding. Some 1,000 people responded to my most recent detailed survey on cycling and almost every one of them rated that as the No. 1 concern. Again, it would not form part of the local cycling budget per se, but it is very much in the interests of cycling that those more humdrum projects are done.

Mark Lazarowicz: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. All of us, as cyclists, know the experience of suddenly coming across a pothole, particularly one that we did not realise was there. However, I do not think that the two issues are separate. There must be road maintenance, but if there were major projects in the national infrastructure plan to bring forward cycling schemes at various places in the country that were—iconic is the wrong word—beacons, that would be a good way of spending the money. That idea also has the benefit that such projects could be brought forward much more quickly than new roads or road expansion, and could provide the infrastructure boost that is the whole point of the national infrastructure plan.
	We have all heard how cycling is good for us as individuals, for public health, for the economy, for reducing carbon emissions, for tackling climate change and for the environment. For all those reasons, it is something that needs support. The support that it is given by government at all levels is improving, by and large, but much more needs to be done. I hope that this debate has underlined that need throughout the country.

Pauline Latham: I congratulate the all-party parliamentary cycling group on securing this debate. However, given that it is an all-party group, I think that some Opposition Members have been rather churlish in not representing all the parties, but instead making a lot of party political points and having a go at the Minister when he has not even spoken. They could
	have resisted that urge and made this an all-party Back-Bench business debate in which everybody could speak and be positive about cycling.
	As a non-cyclist, I have been contacted by a lot of local members of various cycling organisations and long-standing cyclists who want me to do something about the problem of cycling right up the A6. Families and elderly people cannot cycle on it because it is very dangerous. Even the keenest cyclists are nervous about going on that very busy main road. I contacted all of them to set up a meeting and we established a group to look at how we could get cyclists off the road. There is some off-road cycling in Derby along defunct train lines, but one has to drive to them. That is fine for leisure cycling, but not for commuting. It is also not good for families with young children who want to go out for an hour or so on a Saturday afternoon, because they have to get in a car to get there. It would be better if they could get on to a route near the A6 from their own homes. That route would go through the Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site, so it would bring in tourism as well.
	The Derwent Valley cycleway group has been working for a year with Derbyshire county council and Derby city council to identify a route that could be realised. The route is almost in place. The landowners are mostly supportive. There is one who is not too keen because he is concerned about the livestock in his fields, but that can be overcome. The group is very passionate. It celebrated its first anniversary last week and we had a meeting to see where we had got to. I want to praise the amount of work that all its members have done voluntarily to help the local authorities come up with a scheme that can be funded.
	Derby city council has £2 million to spend on cycle routes over the next five years, which is great. We only want it to fund a small portion of the route from the Silk Mill in Derby city, which comes from one of the earliest parts of the industrial revolution, up through Belper, with its Arkwright mills from the start of the industrial revolution. The route would go right up to Matlock and beyond. At the moment, I am concerned with my constituency, but it would carry on into the constituency of the Secretary of State for Transport.
	As many people know, Derbyshire is a hugely hilly county. It is hard work cycling in Derbyshire, which is great for keen cyclists, but not for families who are trying to get their children cycling. The group has therefore looked at bringing the cycle path alongside the river all the way up, which would take it close to all the old mills that used water power during the industrial revolution.
	The scheme is a very practical one. What is needed now is for the funding to come forward. I am therefore pleased that the report suggests funding of £10 per head. I am also pleased to note that the Government would like to get to that amount as soon as possible.
	If we could get the cycle route going, it would contribute not only to people’s health, but to their education, because they would see a world heritage site. It is pretty impressive to see the enormous Arkwright mills in Belper and further north. It would make a big difference by educating young people in particular about where the industrial revolution started. Healthwise, the route would help many people to get the exercise that they do not normally get. I have even promised that I might take
	to a bicycle if we get the route going, because I might be able to go along that fairly flat route. Although I used to cycle a lot as a child, I have lost confidence and wobble all over the place, so I would not dare to cycle on a road.
	Many groups in the area cycle for sport. They cycle quite long distances at speed. This would be a great route for them. They tend to go out early in the morning, whereas leisure cyclists tend to go out a bit later, so they should not clash unduly.
	Businesses would welcome the route. This relates to the third recommendation of the report. Many people who live in Belper in my constituency work in Derby—quite a lot of people also work in Belper, and I would like there to be more employment in Belper—and they would like to cycle into Derby, but there is no safe route. It is important that we provide safe routes for people to cycle to work. Again, the people going to work, who will be professional, Lycra-type cyclists, are more likely to travel early in the morning and come back in the evening, whereas leisure cyclists, such as older people and families, would go at times when the route is less congested.
	The report is very welcome. The fact that the Backbench Business Committee has granted this debate shows that everybody in the Chamber and the Government takes the issue seriously. I commend the report to the Minister, and ask for more off-road cycle routes that could be combined with routes for walkers and horses. We do not have enough bridlepaths in this country, and the two can go side by side—there is no reason for that to be dangerous as long as people are courteous and accept that there will be other users on the route. If we could have a multi-use cycle route, bridlepath and walking route, we would get far more people out and about, working hard to get fit, and we would introduce more tourism to the area. That would bring money to the area, which will always be welcome, and I would like more of that to be developed. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that, and perhaps come up with a strategy for how we in Derbyshire can progress that scheme—with funding at some point—so that we can have a better route for millions of people to come and enjoy our world heritage sites.

Julian Lewis: I begin with a tribute and a confession. The tribute is to the Minister. He has been exceptionally patient and lived up to every syllable of his surname in the way he has considered the problems that we in the New Forest have had recently with a particular aspect of cycling—namely the mass cycling events or sportives—and I wish to say a few words about that in my contribution to the debate. The confession is that the last time I cycled regularly was in Oxford in 1975. That was the year that I discovered the joys of motorised two-wheel transport and bought my first motor scooter, as it was then, powered at 50 cc. To this day, I am proud to say that I still use two wheels, but they are now powered by 750 cc, so I get all the exhilaration without having to invest the effort. My admiration, therefore, is unbounded for those who do invest effort in cycling. Not only is cycling part and parcel of an excellent life and health scheme, it is also part and parcel—indeed, it is integral—to the public profile of the New Forest.
	I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but when I think of the lovely New Forest I immediately think of activities such as horse riding, walking, rambling, bird watching, camping and, yes, cycling. It is therefore sad that in recent months, a major problem has arisen in relation to cycling in the New Forest. It is not, however, an insoluble problem, and I hope that with Good-will—in both senses of the word—we will soon be able to solve it.
	The problem is this. We have had mass cycling events in the New Forest for many years, and they caused no difficulties whatsoever when the numbers concerned were in the order of 500 or 600 participants—that is quite a lot when thinking about rural roads. We all know that specific laws and regulations deal with competitive cycling on the public highways, but the loophole arises in mass cycling events in the New Forest—or sportives as they are known—because people are competing not against each other but against themselves. They are seeking at all times to better the speed and time with which they complete quite lengthy cycle rides in the New Forest, and that brings obvious dangers and disadvantages to other road users and to the livestock of the New Forest. It may come as a surprise to hon. Members to know that in the New Forest, ponies, donkeys and cattle have the right of way on public roads, and motorists and cyclists do not. Therefore unless these major events are regulated—hopefully with a very light touch—there are obvious dangers of clashes, accidents and the generation of ill-feeling. It is about that generation of ill-feeling that I wish to inform the House.
	In my hand I have the front page of the 23 August edition of the Lymington Times, and the main story is headlined, “Anti-cycling concern leads NPA”—New Forest national park authority—“to scrap Forest ‘Boris-bikes’”. A scheme would have brought docking stations for about 250 extra bikes into the New Forest, and funding was available with the blessing of the Government. However, such is the antipathy and poisoning of the well, caused by the clashes over those mass cycling events—some of which have had up to 3,000 participants and been spread over two days—that in the end the NPA decided not to take up the money for that purpose. It has had to come up with alternative cycling-related schemes that do not actually have the benefit of bringing more cyclists on to the road.

Ian Austin: Who else does the hon. Gentleman think should be prevented from coming to the New Forest: the people who want to walk around the New Forest or to run along its roads, or is it just cyclists that he thinks should be regulated off the roads of the New Forest?

Julian Lewis: I am very sorry that I have been making my message come across so obscurely. No one is talking about anyone being regulated off the roads. On the contrary, we want them to be regulated on the roads. That is precisely the demand the communities in the New Forest are making, because the New Forest is a living, working forest. It is not a theme park.

Ian Austin: rose—

Julian Lewis: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s first intervention before I let him have a second.
	With good will and with co-operation and arrangements that relate to three things this problem could be solved. The sensible arrangements are: that the local authority should have the power to determine the frequency of these events; that it should have the right to limit the total numbers participating in the events; and that the participants should wear some form of identification, probably numbering, so that where there are mass events and incidents occur—let us be frank about this, sometimes incidents of an aggressive nature do occur—then there can be no question about misidentification.

Julian Huppert: I wonder if I can bring the hon. Gentleman back to the very exciting New Forest cycle hire scheme. As I understand it, more of the responses to the public consultation from people living within the forest were in favour of the scheme than against it. Does he agree that it is a rather perverse decision from the authority to listen to the public, hear that they support it and then decide that they cannot go ahead with it?

Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the point I am making. I do not want to second-guess the decision of the national park authority for the simple reason that I did not involve myself in that debate and I only read about it afterwards. Frankly, I do not have enough information to make a judgment on whether I sympathise or not. However, what I certainly think—I hope he would agree—is that it is really unfortunate that the attitude towards cycling in general by the representatives of the national park and the community in the New Forest has been so damaged by this dispute over mass cycling events that cycling is getting a bad name.
	To conclude, I simply say that we look to the Minister to try to have some reserve regulatory powers in place, hopefully seldom having to be relied upon, to ensure that where there is a danger of a clash—as has happened on one occasion, between the New Forest drift, when the ponies have to be moved across the forest, and a mass cycling event—and where there is a question mark over perhaps two major cycling events being scheduled for the same day, or where there is too much bunching of events one after another rather than being spread at reasonable intervals, just as there is light-touch regulation for racing events on the public highway, we believe there should be some powers in reserve so that cycling can regain its popular reputation. In this way, the New Forest and cycling will once again be bracketed together harmoniously, rather than as a source of dissonance and friction.

Richard Burden: It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, which is a credit to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. No less than 11 Members have made speeches, more if one takes interventions into account. It is a credit in particular to the officers of the all-party group on cycling: my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who introduced the debate, and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Winchester (Steve Brine).
	It is also right to mention the cycling and active travel organisations that support the all-party group. They have played a big role in making today’s debate happen. Between them they have a great deal of power, because
	we were told by Ministers more than a year ago—this has been mentioned already—that there would be a cycling delivery plan. More than a year ago, we were told the Government were working on that. We have been asking the Government for a year, “Where is it?” It has been a bit like waiting for Godot, but, amazingly, one Back-Bench debate and suddenly, hey presto, the delivery plan appears—or, as some have called it, the derisory plan.
	As this debate has made clear, there are huge benefits to cycling. In particular, it improves people’s health—physical inactivity costs the NHS between £1 billion and £1.8 billion every year—and protects the environment by tackling air pollution and congestion in our towns and cities. As hon. Members have said, therefore, this affects all road users, whether motorists or lorry drivers, cyclists, bus passengers, pedestrians or motorcyclists, and many of us are all or some of those things at different times; we are all road users, and our roads must work for everyone. Getting Britain cycling is not simply a two-wheeled agenda. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) pointed out, the voice of the motorist, the AA, supports the report as well.
	If I remember correctly, last year the Minister promised a walking and cycling plan to promote active travel as a whole, but as far as I can tell, we have here a delivery plan—if it is a delivery plan—for cycling only. Why is that?
	As the report shows, just 2% of journeys are made by bike, while nearly two thirds are made by car, over half of them shorter than five miles. We lag behind other countries—Germany, Demark and Holland have all been mentioned—that have set impressive targets for cycling. For that reason, the “Get Britain Cycling” report was clear that we needed vision, ambition and strong political leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) also pointed out. But what progress have we seen? The Government’s delivery plan today starts with a section entitled, “Vision, Leadership and Ambition”. Given that the Minister wants to show those things, I would like to ask him about how the plan measures up to that.
	The plan puts much emphasis on new partnerships being created between the Government and local authorities to support cycling, and says that they want local authorities to register and expand cycling in their areas. However, unless I have missed something, the incentives on local authorities in the delivery plan are vague at best. What about those areas that do not sign up? Where is the national vision, leadership and ambition there? How will the Minister encourage areas to get onboard that are just starting to dip their toes in the water? How will he share best practice there? In that respect, the point made by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) was very pertinent.
	The Minister talks about the Department’s active travel consortium and an extended local sustainable transport fund knowledge-sharing network being responsible for sharing best practice, but how will that work? Has he learned from past mistakes, because the Government’s record on this is not good. Ministers scrapped Cycling England, which co-ordinated action on cycling, and the replacement cycling stakeholder forum and the so-called high-level cycling group have met just a few times in a year. What confidence can
	organisations involved in the active travel consortium have that they will have the clout and reach to promote active travel and ensure that better travel infrastructure for cycling is delivered?
	I accept that the Minister is serious in his personal support for cycling, but where is the buy-in from other Departments, particularly from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who suggested that cycling was the preserve of the elite? He is not alone in that view. In my own town, Birmingham, a prominent Conservative councillor is on the record saying that cycling is discriminatory against women, particularly women from ethnic minorities. Fortunately, most people in Birmingham do not share that view.
	It is good to see a review of how the planning system can support walking and cycling, but I understand that DCLG will imminently be publishing new guidance on transport planning. Will this be another silo, separate from the Minister’s, or will the two relate, and if so, how?

Ben Bradshaw: The lesson from when we were in government was that this only works when the Secretaries of State in every Department with an interest in the matter work together. This is a classic area of cross-departmental cost-benefit. At the moment, the problem is that everything is done in silos. Individual Departments are not putting their heads together to work out how much cycling benefits all of us, and that is why nothing is happening.

Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Why does the Minister himself not take a look at best practice elsewhere? Why not learn some of the lessons that will be unfolding from the active travel legislation in Wales, which will require all corners of government to co-ordinate and get buy-in to promote active travel?
	Another message that has been impressed upon us today, time and again, is the need for a clear funding stream. Funding streams need to be predicable and continuous. Today’s delivery plan seems to contain a lot of the right words, but if we look a little more closely, it is not clear exactly what those commitments are. We have heard a lot of talk, including in the delivery plan, about aspirations and wider funding opportunities, but I am still not clear what those are. Forgive me, but I think we need rather more than that from a Government whose use of smoke and mirrors on this issue has been second to none.
	This is a Government who claim to have doubled spending on cycling, but when we look closely, we see that they funded Bikeability by top-slicing £63 million from the local sustainable transport fund, which was itself meant in large part to promote cycling. Then the Government claimed they were increasing funding for cycling with the money they gained by scrapping Cycling England. The Government cannot have it both ways. The double counting has to end. All this comes at a time when Ministers have slashed local authority funding by a third and when our research has shown that half of councils have had to cut spending on walking and cycling since 2010.
	How about a bit of a change of approach? Instead of centralising power and localising blame, why not do what we have suggested and devolve £30 billion of funding to strong, accountable combined local authorities
	to get such schemes going? If the Government have set out £28 billion for our roads until 2021, with funding certainty for road and rail, why not get a bit of certainty in funding for cycling? How about heeding what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) set out in our recent party conference, when she called for action on education, engineering and enforcement?
	On engineering, I hope that all references to cycle proofing in the Minister’s delivery plan will take on board Labour’s call for new cycle safety assessments, to ensure that all transport projects are assessed for their impact on vulnerable road users and active travel. However, the proof of that pudding will be in the eating. We need all engineers and planners to include cycling at the design stage, not as an afterthought.
	What about enforcement? Nearly half of cyclists say that it is too dangerous to cycle on the roads safely at the moment—we all listened to what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) said about the tragic case of John Radford. We have called for the restoration of national targets to cut road deaths and serious injuries. I want to know why Ministers continue to resist that. Why do they have to be the ones dragging their feet on HGV safety in the UK and the European Union, rather than taking on board our suggestion of an HGV cycle safety charter, with industry regulation to ensure that HGVs are fitted with minimum safety features to protect cyclists? How will hiking HGV speed limits on single carriageway roads—despite the Department’s own impact assessment saying it will increase deaths—contribute to what we are talking about today?

Julian Huppert: The shadow Minister is making some interesting points. He has heard a lot of calls from his Back Benchers to support the “Get Britain Cycling” recommendations and commit money. Will he say now that the Labour party will include “Get Britain Cycling” in its manifesto and will he commit to spending £10 a year per person in the next Parliament if the Labour party is in government?

Richard Burden: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman, if he was following my drift, is that we have been absolutely clear that in order for the objectives in the “Get Britain Cycling” report to be taken forward, money has to be available and it has to be predictable and continuous. He will also know that it will be for the shadow Chancellor, just as much as it is for the Chancellor, to commit precise amounts. However, what I can give the hon. Gentleman a commitment to is continuous and predictable funding—something that simply is not in the cycling delivery plan.

Ben Bradshaw: I may be being a bit dim, but although I completely accept that Chancellors and shadow Chancellors set overall budgets, surely as a ministerial team with a departmental budget—my criticism of the Government is that they have not done this—it is perfectly within the powers of my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend to earmark a small proportion of the Department’s budget to reach the target. He does not require the permission of our right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor.

Richard Burden: The issue of providing clear, predictable and continuous funding is exactly that; it is about providing funding through a funding stream for cycling.
	A number of prominent people within the cycling community have put it to me that the issue of predictability and clarity is more important than whether we are talking about £8, £9, £10, £11 or £12. That is the point, and it explains what we are going to bring forward.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Richard Burden: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make some progress, as there is a time limit.
	The final thing we need to do is to ensure that the Government take the importance of education and promotion much more seriously—something that the report understands and emphasises in calling for a
	“a dramatic increase in the number and diversity of people who cycle”.
	For children, this means long-term support for bikeability. For women, who still make up only a quarter of Britain’s cyclists, cycle safety is a big concern. Cycling is also important for all of us who want to make our communities safer, greener and happier places in the future.
	I hope that today’s delivery plan heralds a change of thinking by the Government, but I reckon we will need a lot more action to secure the kind of change we need. I suspect that it will take more than a delivery plan; it will take a change of Government.

Robert Goodwill: I thank the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for securing the debate and my hon. and special Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for fundamentally undermining Labour’s pledges on spending. Given that the shadow Chancellor holds their purse strings, Labour Members are unable to make any commitments whatever on this matter.
	I am pleased to see in the House such great enthusiasm for cycling, as I, too, am passionate about cycling. Indeed, I was a member of the all-party group until my promotion prevented me from continuing to be so. It was the first time I saw a Brompton bike being unfolded at an all-party group meeting that prompted me to buy one of those wonderful machines, which are made in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said he was preaching to the converted. I plead guilty; I am one of the converted and nobody needs to persuade me of the benefits of cycling both for individuals and for our country as a whole.
	Today’s debate is timely. Just this morning, as promised by the Prime Minister in August last year, we published our draft 10-year strategy for cycling in England, entitled the cycling delivery plan. I point out that walking features in it, too, and that one of our targets relates to walking to school. The delivery plan reflects the views of a high-level stakeholder group on cycling, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their input.
	The delivery plan is a 10-year one for England and deals with how central Government, local government, business, the third sector and the public can all work together to help grow cycling in different parts of England. I ask the hon. Member for Dudley North to read it because there is such a lot in it. His speech suggested
	that the glass was half empty, so let me tell him it is more than half full. I hope he will take heart from some of the important announcements and commitments we make.
	I am pleased that we have moved on from the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) gave his speech on his rather revolutionary ideas. I am pleased that many of these ideas are not only mainstream, but in the plan.
	We have already seen the start of a cycling revolution in London, and we want to replicate this trend elsewhere, so that the nation as a whole can reap the benefits of cycling. We all know that the benefits of cycling are many and wide reaching: it helps reduce congestion on our roads, as we have heard; it helps cut pollution in our environments; and it can help individuals to become fitter and healthier. Regular cycling can help lose weight, reduce stress and boost health. I can let the House into a little secret: when I entered the European Parliament, I quickly put on 2 stone and lost it only after I bought a new bicycle. I seem to be a testament to that particular health benefit.
	Regular cycling is also good for the economy. Cycling supports businesses through producing more motivated and productive staff who miss fewer days due to sickness and absence. Increased cycling and walking will save the NHS billions in the cost of treating diabetes, heart disease and mental ill health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out in his speech. Cycling in inner-city areas reduces congestion and often proves to be the quickest, most reliable way of travelling for short- to-medium distance trips. Indeed, that is how I travel here each day. Last but not least, increased cycling gives rise to a local, creative, innovative and sustainable industry consisting mostly of small and medium-sized enterprises.
	In view of all those benefits, it is no wonder that the Government are serious about cycling, and that they have provided twice as much funding for it as the last Administration. Given that £374 million—or £622 million if we include match funding—is being committed between 2011 and 2015, investment in cycling is currently about £5 per person, up from the £2 at which it stood when we came to office.
	Among the key recommendations in the APPG’s report “Get Britain Cycling” was a call for sustained investment to bring us into line with other European countries. It is clear that the Government are moving in the right direction. We recognise that we need to explore how local government can go further than that £5 per person, which is why our cycling delivery plan states:
	“The Government’s aspiration is that—working with local government, and businesses, we can together explore how we can achieve a minimum funding packet equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21—and sooner if possible.”
	This is the first time that the Government have included that £10 figure in a document, and I have to say that, having let the genie out of the bottle, I intend to do nothing to try to put it back.

Greg Knight: I congratulate the Government on what they have done. However, in my constituency, I recently saw four cyclists travelling two abreast on a stretch of the highway that ran parallel to a dedicated cycle path. Does my hon. Friend think that when cyclists take such action without justification they should be deemed to be committing an offence?

Robert Goodwill: I have seen that happen on the A64 in my own area. In many cases, it may be because the maintenance of the cycle path is not good. Indeed, in some places cyclists are encouraged to cross the main carriageway because there is a cycle path on only one side of it. I would, however, urge all road users to abide by the rules of the road, and to respect others who are using it. Speaking as one who is a motorist and has been a lorry driver, a cyclist, a horseless carriage driver, a steam engine driver—you name it, I have driven it—I think it important for us all to treat each other with respect on the road.

Bob Stewart: May I clarify one point? The Government intend to try to reach a spending level of £10 per person. Do they expect that to be done entirely at local level, or will they provide additional funds to help local authorities?

Robert Goodwill: While the Highways Agency network will be dealing with our commitment to cycle-proof new road schemes, local highway authorities, local councils, or the Mayor of London and some of the other mayors around the country deliver on other schemes. We have a good track record of giving money, whether through cycling ambition grants for our cities or through local sustainable transport schemes, nearly all of which include a cycling element. We have seen local authorities deliver that, which is great. Councillor Martyn Bolt in Kirklees, for instance, is a real champion of cycling. I think that every local authority needs a cycling champion to ensure that its priorities are the priorities of the cyclist.

Richard Burden: If we are fortunate enough to be elected in May, it will be important for us to be aware of the content of the existing budgets and spending commitments so that we can work out our own ideas. Do the Government consider the £10 target to be an aspiration or a commitment?

Robert Goodwill: The word that we use is “aspiration”, but our mention of the £10 figure has put it on record that the Government intend to work towards that aspiration. Many schemes, however—one example is the cycle to work scheme—depend on company subscriptions. We depend on local authorities’ making cycling a priority, and we are keen to ensure that such decisions are made locally. We also work with rail operating companies, which often make decisions on matters such as parking at stations. We feel that our target is genuinely achievable if we work with local government and other organisations, including businesses, and I am very proud that we have put that on record.

Robin Walker: I congratulate the Minister on the £10 aspiration, which I think is important. In Worcester, we see a great deal of investment in cycling and sustainable transport. We have a new bridge across the river, and a good riverside loop that can be used for cycling. The next stage, potentially, will be a high walk, which is being promoted by our university. It would raise the river crossing above the level that is affected by floods, for the benefit of both cyclists and disabled people. That could be a real breakthrough in terms of sustainable transport in Worcester. I do not ask the Minister to make any commitment immediately, but may I ask him to examine the proposal very carefully when it is submitted?

Robert Goodwill: That is precisely the type of scheme we are seeing delivered up and down the country. Indeed, the money we are investing in our eight cycle cities and TfL funding in London is already in excess of the £10 per head as recommended in “Get Britain Cycling”. The investment in cycling will be even more long term and successful with the local government commitment to working with central Government and others to achieve this, and the infrastructure we build now will be there for generations to come. In many cases we are looking at a cumulative effect of investment. It is not money that is out of the door today and gone tomorrow; this money will be reaping benefits for many years to come.
	But funding alone will not achieve the revolution in cycling the Prime Minister has in mind or the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to double the levels of cycling by 2020. Encouraging behaviour change is an important aspect of our plans. Cycling needs to become second nature, as it is for the people in the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere. A revolution in cycling can be achieved only if cycling is considered a natural choice for shorter journeys by all.
	The delivery plan has been developed with just that in mind, and with the appreciation that a real step-change in cycling cannot be achieved overnight or with funding alone. The delivery plan is a road map for the future, setting out the direction of travel for the next 10 years. It is a clear commitment from Government leaders to do more for cyclists as well as pedestrians, and sets out clear ambitions for the next 10 years.
	Our ambition is to work with local government and businesses to explore how we can achieve a minimum funding package equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21, and sooner if possible, and that is a focus of our engagement on the delivery plan over the next four weeks. We want to see the number of journeys by bike double in 10 years, and we want to see a significant increase in the number of children walking or cycling to school. Our target is to reach 55% of five to 10-year-olds usually walking to school.
	The delivery plan includes specific actions to achieve these aims. It includes plans for infrastructure development and tackling safety and perceptions of safety—the latter being the biggest barrier preventing people from taking to their bikes—and, most importantly, the delivery plan calls on local government to step up to the plate and to build on our successes achieved so far.
	We are aware that in parts of the world that have achieved step-changes in cycling levels a common theme is often very strong leadership at the local level. That is why central to our plans is our call on local authorities, who are responsible for implementing local transport schemes and public health, to put an increased emphasis on cycling and walking.
	Specifically, the delivery plan includes a call for expressions of interest from local authorities interested in forming a partnership with Government to increase walking and cycling. In return, the Government commit to targeted support for local authorities, with incentives including priority access to funding, access to support tools and sector expertise.
	It is through these partnership efforts that we hope to achieve a doubling in levels of cycling across England and help local government achieve the £10 per person aspiration in more places. Government have paved the
	way and are halfway there already, and it is now down to local government to make that further shift to help double cycling levels 10 years from now.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) talked about champions for cycling. Those champions should be in our local councils and our officers in local councils who can deliver those types of schemes and attract funding such as the cycling ambition grant funding, which was £94 million.
	Of course, investment and local and national leadership commitment is key, but it is not enough to persuade people to get on their bikes. Tackling safety and perceptions of safety is key, because we know that there is a misconception that cycling is unsafe, particularly among those who do not cycle. While 67% of non-cyclists say it is too dangerous for them to cycle on the road, the proportion drops to less than half for those who do cycle. Cycling is not unsafe and fatalities are very rare. In fact earlier this year it was reported that the number of deaths at the seaside due to drowning or accidents was much higher, at 167, than the 109 deaths in cycling accidents on Britain’s roads in 2013. No one suggests it is too dangerous to go to the coast for the day.
	Tackling safety for cyclists and potential cyclists is a must, and we want to persuade people to make use of the infrastructure we are building. This is why, through the delivery plan, we have developed a programme of work to address cycle safety issues with a view both to reducing the rate of those killed or seriously injured on the roads and to publicly addressing the perception that cycling is not safe. We have already allocated £35 million to deliver safer junctions. For instance, outside London the funding has enabled improvements in 80 locations and the delivery plan builds on that. It includes specific actions on safety and perceptions of safety. It sets out our cycle safety policy, including on heavy goods vehicle safety, driver and cyclist training and tackling perceptions on safety through cycle training and awareness campaigns. That includes supporting Bikeability, increasing awareness of cycle training for children and adults and utilising local road design to establish safe routes to and around schools.
	We are also doing a tremendous amount of work on cycling infrastructure to make people feel safer on their bikes. We need good infrastructure and planning to get the levels of cycling we have committed to, and the plan includes work to address that. It includes plans on cycle- proofing and pedestrian-proofing policy. Indeed, cycle-proofing was a key part of the Prime Minister’s announcement last August, and the document details progress on this policy area. That includes work to improve training for highways professionals; sharing best practice and information about design of cycle-proofed streets and roads; and, in the long term, commitments towards further reviews of standards and guidance, including a six-month review on how the planning system supports cycling and walking provision.
	Our plans build on the work we have done on cycle rail parking. Another major contributory factor for reaching our target of doubling cycling is our £30 million funding for cycle facilities at railway stations. I recently was in Woking to look at a new cycle parking facility there, which was already full, despite having been opened for only a matter of days. We have provided 13,500 spaces at stations and we need to do more, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said. In addition, we are also making progress with new,
	innovative measures for cyclists at junctions. We are working with highway authorities to trial low-level mini-signals for cyclists, to give more targeted information to cyclists and the possibility of a head start; filter signals for cyclists as an alternative way of providing a head start at traffic lights, and different roundabout designs to reduce the speed of vehicles and provide a safer route for cyclists.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the Minister give way?

Robert Goodwill: By all means.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I help both parties for a moment? We are well behind time and a lot of people are also interested in bees. I know that it is important to get to the end of this, Minister, but I do want to come to a conclusion.

Mark Lazarowicz: On railway stations, will the Minister examine the question I raised about Edinburgh Waverley and perhaps come back to me on it later? I know it relates to Scotland but there is wider interest in it. It is an important point affecting passengers throughout the UK.

Robert Goodwill: I noted the points the hon. Gentleman made about Edinburgh Waverley and the fact that vehicles, including cycles, have been removed.
	In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated today that cycling policy has been a real focus for this Government. Our efforts have clearly paved the way, but it is now down to our partners in local government, supported by central Government, to deliver the cycling revolution the country wants. The delivery plan brings together everything that central and local government, and delivery partners, are doing and need to do to increase cycling. It addresses many of the recommendations in “Get Britain Cycling”. It affirms the national leadership commitment in central Government and calls on local government leadership to take things to new heights.

Lindsay Hoyle: Very briefly, Ian Austin.

Ian Austin: I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for letting us have this debate. I thank all the Members who took part. I believe that more than 25 Members have either spoken or made contributions to it.
	I want to be fair to the Minister. I have never questioned his personal commitment to cycling. He is a long-standing member of our group, and I know that he is deeply committed to improving cycling in Britain and works hard for that. However, I do not think his views are shared by all of his colleagues. I am sorry if the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) thought that I was churlish, but my criticisms of the document published today are pretty mild in comparison with what cycling organisations and people who take an interest in cycling outside this House have had to say about it. What this debate and the response to that document show is the huge amount of work that everybody who is committed to cycling in Britain has to do over the next six months so that we can get both the major parties committed to real improvements in cycling at the next election. That would mean that that whoever is in government next year could make a real contribution to getting people cycling.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House supports the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report ‘Get Britain Cycling’; endorses the target of 10 per cent of all journeys being by bike by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2050; and calls on the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual Cycling Action Plan, sustained funding for cycling and progress towards meeting the report’s recommendations.

National Pollinator Strategy

[Relevant Documents: Seventh Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2012-13, Pollinators and Pesticides, HC 668, and the Government response, HC 631, the Second Report fromthe Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2014-15, National Pollinator Strategy, HC 213, and the Government response, HC 698]

Sarah Newton: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the National Pollinator Strategy.
	It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to speak in the presence of the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is a beekeeper. He did so much work in the previous Parliament to represent not only his constituents but the nation’s honey bees. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this topic for today’s debate and to my colleagues for joining me here this afternoon.
	This debate provides a timely opportunity to recognise the Government’s commitment to protecting and improving the well-being of our pollinators and to debate the draft national pollinator strategy, as there has been such a positive engagement from people right across the UK. I am talking about people who care passionately about nature and our vital farming and food industries. It is also a good opportunity to debate the inquiry undertaken by the Environmental Audit Committee on the draft strategy and the Government’s response, which was published today.
	There is absolutely no doubt of the need for a national pollinator strategy. Pollination services carried out by approximately 1,500 insect species are critical for both eco-system function and crop production, because they facilitate biodiversity. The insects include bumble bees, honey bees, solitary bees, hoverflies, wasps, flies, beetles, butterflies and wasps, and the services they provide are estimated to be worth between £430 million and £603 million a year to UK agriculture.

Neil Parish: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this matter to the House. This year, the climate has been good and the bee population, which is important, has risen. What we need to focus on is having bee-friendly crops not only around fields but along the railway lines and elsewhere. We must take a proactive role in growing more crops, so that there is more food for bees, which will allow their colonies to grow. The climate has been good this year, but we cannot guarantee that every year.

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Without the services of these pollinators, who depend on the sorts of measures my hon. Friend has mentioned, we would see a decline in the variety and availability of nutritious food in the UK, or we would have to introduce expensive mechanical or hand-pollination methods, which would drive up food prices in our country.

Roger Williams: The hon. Lady makes the important point about the role of pollinators in agriculture, and yet we have some difficulty
	in getting a figure on that. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says in an article that it is worth between £186 million and £567 million, and yet a few inches down the page it says that the services are potentially worth only £500 million.

Sarah Newton: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point about the evidence base, and that is a key part of the draft national pollinator strategy. I will come on to the importance of ensuring that we are very much an evidence-based policy-making body.
	There is a mounting evidence base to show that a huge range of threats is leading to overall declines in the number of pollinators, but with no single factor accounting for those losses. There are numerous factors involved, with habitat loss and intensification of land use probably at the top of the list. Pests, disease, the use of agri-chemicals, invasive species and changes to the weather are all factors as well. Those factors affect different species, wild and managed, to different degrees and in different ways. According to the excellent Library briefing prepared for this debate, there is evidence that the losses in wild pollinator and wild insect-pollinated plant diversity might be slowing. But the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has produced a useful note that provides more detail for Members and for members of the public who are following this debate.

Michael Ellis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. Does she agree that bees and our other pollinators are an absolutely essential prerequisite for biodiversity and our eco-system? They are important in many and varied ways, especially with regard to food prices. If we have problems with our pollinators for whatever reason—there are myriad different reasons—it will eventually affect food prices.

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point because a great many of our crops rely on pollination. In some countries, especially America, where pollinators have been wiped out from whole sectors of agriculture, more expensive hand pollination is being introduced. Only last week I saw that UK universities are undertaking research to invent mechanical replicas of bees. Such is the threat to bees, which are the most effective of our pollinators, that we are having to invest in finding ways of replacing them. Although I welcome such research and innovation, it is far more important that we do everything we can to protect and enhance the wonderful natural resource that we have in our pollinators.
	There is clearly a groundswell of concern from a wide range of people and organisations throughout the UK, including beekeepers, scientists, the women’s institute and Friends of the Earth, as well as children and families, thanks to Disney’s “Bee Movie”, and the work of the broadcasters Bill Turnbull and Martha Kearney. That culminated in a bee summit organised by Friends of the Earth in June 2013.
	Last year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published its report “Bees and other pollinators: their value and health in England” in which it outlined its plans for an urgent review of policy and evidence to inform the development of a national pollinator
	strategy. To inform the strategy’s development, DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Ian Boyd, established the independent pollinators expert advisory group, chaired by Professor Charles Godfray, to review published evidence on the status of pollinators and pollination services, to identify gaps in research and to give advice on the development and design of experiments at the landscape scale. The group’s work was published in March, along with the draft national pollinator strategy.
	What I like about the draft national pollinator strategy is that it is just that—an ambitious and joined-up strategy. It recognises that the challenge we face requires not only Government action, but action from everyone. Following widespread stakeholder involvement, it takes a comprehensive approach to providing a national framework for local action by all people and organisations that can make a positive difference, from people at home to planners and land managers.
	I welcome the three focused areas of the strategy, the first of which is evidence gathering on pollinator status and the impacts of environmental pressures. In national biology week, it is good that Parliament is putting science at the heart of the development of an important national strategy. The strategy also proposes “12 evidence actions” to provide a sound base for future policies to support pollinators, including by developing a sustainable monitoring programme for pollinators. DEFRA has already commissioned a two-year research project to develop and test a programme to monitor pollinators.
	Secondly, the strategy proposes “18 priority actions” for the Government and others to implement from 2014, which reflect current evidence and in some cases build on and expand existing initiatives to refocus on the essential needs of pollinators. Those actions cover the management of farmland, towns, cities and public land, pest and disease risks, engaging the public, sharing knowledge, and improving the understanding of the status of pollinators and the services that they provide.
	The strategy’s third aspect is a commitment to its review in 2019. It is proposed that as additional evidence becomes available the strategy should be reviewed and updated. From 2016, there will be new evidence from the monitoring programme and other evidence projects, as well as experience from implementing the strategy itself.
	I support the emphasis on promoting local joined-up working. Last week, I chaired the first Cornwall bee summit, sponsored and enabled by Tregothnan, which has a deep commitment to honey bees and their health. The summit was a great opportunity for people who are already making such a positive difference to share their experience and identify what more needs to be done in Cornwall: from members of the WI to parish councillors; from landowners and the National Farmers Union to beekeepers at Tregothnan and throughout Cornwall; and from leading academic Juliet Osborne, who is from Exeter university and based in my constituency, Richard Soffe of Duchy college and Cornwall council’s ecologist, Natasha Collings, to representatives of organisations that work day and night to help our pollinators, including the Gaia Trust and the B4 project, and larger groups such as Friends of the Earth and Buglife. If people are interested, they can watch a summary of the bee summit online.

Maria Miller: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of conservation volunteer groups, which do so much to nurture flower
	meadows in a way that is so important for the bee and insect population? In particular, I would like to pay tribute to the Old Down and Beggarwood wildlife group in my constituency.

Sarah Newton: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to volunteers the length and breadth of our country who are doing so much to protect and enhance natural habitats, for pollinators and for a wide variety of species.
	I would like to share with colleagues some of the feedback from the bee summit and ask the Minister to consider incorporating the following points into the final strategy. I am very appreciate of the fact that DEFRA’s bee policy lead, Richard Watkins, came to the bee summit—he is also here today—and I pay tribute to the work he has done. He will be able to give the Minister a full briefing on the summit.
	I urge the Minister to put at the top of his to-do list the need to integrate pest and pollinator management on farms and to ensure that there is support to enable farmers to do that in the forthcoming changes to CAP payments. Once he has tackled that, there is an urgent need to ensure that all farmers and land managers have access to education about the pollinator strategy and new ways of managing pest control and their crops.
	When we consider research on the management of honey bees, there needs to be a clear understanding that the needs of native honey bees will be different from those of their imported cousins, because many of our commercial beekeepers rely on imported bees. However, the native honey bees are very much part of the solution, particularly when looking at how to tackle well-known diseases that pose a threat to our managed bee colonies, such as the varroa mite. I point the Minister to the excellent work of Rodger Dewhurst of the Cornwall Bee Improvement and Bee Breeders Group to encourage the breeding and use of the native Cornish black bees.

Bob Stewart: May I ask my hon. Friend, who knows lots more about this than I do, whether there is a risk that the imported bees will attack and kill off our native bees, just as the grey squirrels have done to our red squirrels? Have we got a real problem from abroad?

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend, perhaps without realising it, has hit on an important point, and one that was discussed at length at the bee summit. Importing bees may well have health implications for our native species. One of the things that I will ask the Minister to consider today is conducting research into the relationship between imported farm bees and wild pollinators. It is a serious matter. There are also food security issues, because sadly we have seen some new problems arising in continental Europe, such as a new disease that is being introduced to hives by a type of beetle. Although DEFRA has that under control and we do not believe that it poses a huge threat to our bee hives at the moment, the introduction of disease is always a threat when importing bees. That was one of the findings of our summit, and it is on the list of things I will ask the Minister to consider. Also on that list is the need to ensure that we focus not only on honey bees, vital though they are, but on pollinators that are more difficult to monitor, such as bumble bees, which play an important part in pollination.

Greg Knight: Is not it worth reinforcing the point that people who are concerned about this do not have to wait for some grand Government plan but can play a part themselves by planting pollen-rich flowers in their gardens?

Sarah Newton: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. People need some guidance, because different types of bees need different types of plants in the garden and at different times of the year. One of the roles that DEFRA will have to play in implementing the strategy is to give clear advice on the sorts of flowers and plants that gardeners all over the country could plant to help their native pollinators.
	As in so many policy areas, it is very important that good guidance is put in place for local authorities so that local solutions can be found, especially in the planning process so that planners can build in good habitats for pollinator well-being. Environmental impact statements are required for other species, so why not pollinators too?

Zac Goldsmith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech and on securing this debate. Does she agree that there is also a strong role to be played by local authorities in committing themselves to not mowing council-owned land before August and encouraging flower banks? Likewise, the Ministry of Defence owns vast amounts of land across the country that is very poorly managed in relation to biodiversity. An enormous amount could be done right now—not, perhaps, in understanding the collapse of these colonies and the decline of pollinators, but in helping existing pollinators to flourish.

Sarah Newton: I completely agree. Again, DEFRA guidance could really help councils and landowners, right now, to manage their grassland, in particular, but also to plan their planting, recognising that different native bees need different foraging areas and different plants around the country. At a time when many local councils are looking to make cost savings, reducing the amount of money they spend on grass-cutting and leaving some land available to go wild for foragers would not only save the taxpayer money but save a vital habitat for our pollinators.
	Raising public awareness of the bee is very important. I thank people such as Jacqueline Davey of the International Bee Research Association, who goes into Cornish schools raising awareness of the importance of our pollinators. The National Federation of Women’s Institutes and Friends of the Earth have shown through their campaigns how much support there is for honey bees and pollinators, and we need to harness that energy and support.
	I recognise that the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry delayed the publication of the national pollinator strategy. I urge the Government to reflect on the points raised in this debate and the contributions made by people all around the UK on the draft strategy, and to publish the final strategy so that we can all join together and make a determined effort to protect and enhance the well-being of our national treasure, the pollinator.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I suggest that Members speak for about eight minutes in order to get everybody in.

Alan Whitehead: I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on obtaining this debate. It comes at a very important point, following the conclusion of the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiries on neonicotinoids and pesticides and on the draft pollinator strategy, and action that might be forthcoming as a result of that and of the two-year EU moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids that has got under way. I, too, urge a rapid passage towards a final national pollinator strategy, which is urgently required. I want to reflect on one or two things that ought to be rather more emphasised in that strategy, particularly those that arise from the work that the EAC has done on the matter.
	I join the hon. Lady in emphasising that we are talking about pollinators, not just about domestic bees, or even wild bees, although it has been important that a lot of the campaigning on these matters has related to Members and other people in public positions standing next to people dressed in large bee outfits.

Neil Carmichael: As somebody who has done the bee photograph twice, I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means. Does he agree that the essence of our Environmental Audit Committee report is that there is a strong case for protecting bees and that our work should inform a proper national plan?

Alan Whitehead: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was going to say. I hope he was not one of the people wearing a bee outfit who stood next to me; I think he probably stood next to somebody else in a bee outfit.
	The “Bee Cause” campaign and various others have done well to concentrate on the threats that pollinators face, but we should reflect not just on bees, both domestic and wild, but on pollinators across the board. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth has said, they are, collectively, such an important element in the national health of our crops and fruits, and they interact with the natural environment in a whole range of other ways. We do not understand wild pollinators to the extent that we should; indeed, our EAC inquiry found that the general research is very ragged. We need to obtain a deeper understanding, particularly of pollinators in the wild. I hope the Department will take cognisance of that.

Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the relationship between the evidence produced by those who manufacture insecticides and those who commission it from a more green point of view is one of considerable mistrust? Would it not be a good thing if they could get together and agree on the outcome of their research? Perhaps then we could make more progress.

Alan Whitehead: I agree that the research commissioned by companies that have an interest in the outcome, particularly in field trials, can cause considerable mistrust. The research does not need to be done entirely independently, but the process does need to be clear and transparent. The companies should put their hands on the table and follow standards and protocols that can be supervised by external bodies. There is also a question
	mark in my mind as to whether the Department itself is awaiting a perfect piece of research, as it were, to inform its future findings. The Committee has concluded that there is no such thing as a perfect piece of research in “natural conditions,” because they have already been compromised. We should apply a probability principle to work that has already been done and then add properly peer-reviewed and supervised additional research to it. That might be much better than adopting the tentative but alarming position—which I think still pervades this debate—of simply considering how the research might inform us for the future.

Zac Goldsmith: On the point about over-reliance on industry data, which we might call contaminated data, a piece was recently written in The Times by Lord Ridley. He claimed that the neonicotinoid ban means that 50% of oil seed rape crops have been devastated, because they have not been protected. However, figures released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs only a few days ago show that the loss of yield is about 1.35%, which is well within the bounds of ordinary seasonal and annual fluctuations. That very clearly illustrates the danger of relying too much on industry data. Lord Ridley takes the industry or big business line on almost every issue, but I think we should be very cautious about attaching too much importance—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has got the message.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about the extent to which we need a better overview of the policy implications of the various elements in the research. I want to concentrate briefly on that point.
	I remain concerned about not just the Environmental Audit Committee’s original inquiry and the Government response to it, but the latest Government response, which was published just two or three days ago, to the Committee’s second inquiry. The response is apparently very tentative about how far the Department is bound by the two-year moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids, and about whether the Department will consider simply reintroducing the use of neonicotinoids at the end of the moratorium.
	Is the Department prepared at the very least to make time available for researchers to come up with much more definitive conclusions before it lifts the moratorium? I would prefer—there are caveats on the research, but it seems to me that overwhelming evidence for this is already available—for the Department, rather than considering what to do about neonicotinoids at the end of the moratorium, to go further than that and say, “That is it, as far as neonicotinoids are concerned. What we need to do for the substantial element of the national pollinator strategy is to get much clearer and better definitions of integrated pest management.”
	In such a way, we could move from neonicotinoids to other forms of pest management that are more appropriate for the overall health of our pollinator population in the longer term. I must say that I am disappointed that the Government response lacks a definition of an integrated pest management scheme. For the final strategy, I urge the Minister to look again at a much better, more
	understandable and clearer definition of how integrated pest management might continue following the moratorium, so that we can move to a much more organic, less pesticide-intensive and certainly more modern ways of ensuring that our pollinators are protected as far as possible.

David Heath: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) secured this debate, to which I am a co-signatory. This is an opportune moment to talk again about the national pollinator strategy and what we do in this country about pollinators, and to pick up on the issues that are still to be resolved in the development of the strategy.
	I make no secret of the fact that I have been interested in this subject for a long time. I asked questions in the House eight or nine years ago about what the then Government proposed to do about bee health. They did nothing for some time, but then they did do something. I give them credit for putting money into research towards the end of their period in office.
	This country can be very proud of the National Bee Unit and the work that it does. I am delighted by its work, because it underpins some of our efforts. Having said that, although I was not the Minister responsible for bee health when I was in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—that responsibility was held by my noble Friend Lord de Mauley—I looked closely at the information that was presented and was conscious of the huge gaps in our research base on this subject. That is the case not just in relation to the domestic honey bee, as it were, on which we at least have a large body of observation data from beekeepers, who know what their charges are doing, but particularly in relation to wild bees, such as the bumblebee or Bombus species, and other wild pollinators. We do not know how they integrate with the environment, what contribution they make or the state of their population health. Unless we have base figures, we have no understanding of what is happening.
	What we do know is that the health of pollinators and the strength of the population are affected by a large number of factors. I suspect that climate is the biggest factor, but it is certainly not the only one. I suspect that weather played a big part in the recovery of some bee populations this year. Simply by observation, I have noticed that the bumblebee population in my garden has been substantially better this year than in previous years. There are also various diseases and infestations. The varroa mite is still a significant problem and there are many other conditions of which we need to be aware.
	A major factor is whether there are sufficient suitable habitats for pollinators. That is not helped by intensive agriculture. The more effective crop management we have, the more we need other land to be available for pollinators. We must provide that balance. I am not against good crop yields—they are essential if we are to feed ourselves—but if they are to be sustainable, we need other elements to be in place. That might mean sacrificing land to provide pollinator habitats. Another factor, which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) spoke about, is the effect of various pesticides and other dressings on crops. I will return to that in a moment.
	We have a lot to celebrate. I am pleased to have pushed hard for a national pollinator strategy, because it is so important. I congratulate my colleagues in the Department for pushing it forward and look forward to the day when it is finally in place. There are a number of factors that I would like the Minister to consider.
	The first factor is research. We need to commission research in the right places. We must carry out research in combination with those overseas who are looking at the same issue, although perhaps in slightly different habitats, in order to understand what is going on. The key is to have a base figure for populations from which we can extrapolate future population health. We need to consider issues that relate to specific species. We need a strong scientific base in order to do that. The Department must therefore have the ability to commission research or to ensure that others do so. It might be done at the European level or elsewhere, but let us make sure that it happens.
	The second factor is the recruitment of the army of citizen scientists into the process. We saw how effective that was when dealing with ash dieback last year, and how useful it was to have people who would go out and look at what was happening. It is interesting that ash dieback has now been carried by the wind to north-west England, yet not a single newspaper or parliamentarian has a word to say about that, although it was the biggest crisis ever only a year ago. However, that information helped us to provide the best response we could, even if it was incomplete—again because of the lack of knowledge —so we must use that.
	The third area—this is probably the biggest point I want to leave with the Minister—is that the Government’s one major lever to improve the health of our pollinator population is to use pillar two of the common agricultural policy in an effective way to give positive encouragement to land that ought to be available for pollinators, and to the sort of growth on land that would encourage them. I have still not seen the final outcome, but when I was Agriculture Minister I pressed hard for the key element of pillar two in the future to be direct support for pollinators and to ensure that good behaviour is rewarded. We need to see headlands and land that is not available for main crops being used effectively, and the so-called ecological focus areas should provide a useful addition to the ecology of an area, rather than being rather arbitrary and token.

Sarah Wollaston: At the moment, taking advice on which 5% of land should be an ecological focus area is voluntary. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be slightly firmer guidance about which areas could be used as ecological focus areas, so that we get the best from them?

David Heath: I am genuinely in two minds about that. I agree that the advice must be there, and that farm and wildlife advisory groups are probably the best apparatus for doing that, along with Natural England and other agencies. However, when I was a Minister, I visited Dartmoor—not a million miles from the hon. Lady’s constituency—and spoke to farmers there. They took a different view on how they used what were then the high-level stewardship schemes, and had a less prescriptive approach. They spoke more about outcomes and what
	they were trying to achieve, and they let farmers use their own land skills to achieve those outcomes. That was successful, and made me think that perhaps we are sometimes too prescriptive, rather than under-prescriptive, in what we do. Yes, we need advice, but I think we sometimes underestimate the ability and willingness of good farmers to do the right thing for their local environment. They would like to do that if they are given the encouragement and scope, so let us see what we can do in terms of design.
	Mention was made earlier—I think it was the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—of the importance of other Departments playing their part. DEFRA cannot do this on its own, and I would like local authorities to be much more attuned to what they can do to encourage pollinators, even if that is only ensuring that the local park contains pollinator-friendly plants, as that would make a difference.
	I will conclude with perhaps the most contentious issue: pesticides. Pesticides are a hazard to insects—that is obvious; they would not be pesticides if they were not. The difficult question that the Government, chemical companies and agriculturalists have to answer all the time is whether that hazard, along with the level of exposure, is a real risk to the pollinator population. That was the difficulty we had with neonicotinoids: there was no evidence to suggest that the hazard that undoubtedly existed and could be demonstrated in sub-lethal quantities in a test tube or laboratory, represented a risk in field conditions, because no work had been done on that. I hope that work has now been done to substantiate that properly one way or another, because such a lacuna in information is unsupportable when it comes to making a competent and coherent decision. The other risk is that banning neonicotinoids encourages the use of pyrethroids and organophosphates, which we certainly do not want to promote, as they are significantly worse options not just for pollinators but for every other living creature in the vicinity.
	Before I sit down I will just mention one point. Hon. Members may not know that next year we have the Milan Expo. The UK’s contribution will be based on the life of the honey bee. I am very proud that our Government and our country recognise the importance of the honey bee, so much so that that is our window to the world.

Joan Walley: I was going to make a long speech, but in view of the time left and all that has been said, I will condense the important points that arise—as the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, said—from the work done by the Environmental Audit Committee, not just in one report, which is authoritative, but in the follow-up report on the national pollinator strategy.
	Many members of the Committee are in the Chamber this afternoon—I apologise to the Minister for the fact that, due to personal reasons, I will not be here for the wind-up speeches—and we want him to take into account, before the Government finalise the national strategy, the authoritative work we have done, the evidence we have received and the detailed hearings we have had. We owe that to the many organisations and people who have engaged skilfully and diplomatically with the Government, from Friends of the Earth, to the National
	Federation of Women’s Institutes, to Buglife, to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to get this national pollinator strategy. It would be unfortunate in the extreme if the detailed work, good will and campaigning that has been done all around the country to get the strategy fit for purpose was not taken into account as the Government prepare to finalise it and make it operational.

Neil Carmichael: I endorse what the hon. Lady is saying. The report is very thorough. It has a huge amount of evidence from a wide range of experts and was properly considered by all members of the Select Committee. It is, if I may say so, as I am a member of the Committee, an example of excellent work by a Select Committee. I hope that the Minister takes heed of what he has heard not once but twice or even thrice.

Joan Walley: I would say this, wouldn’t I, but the work record of the worker bees on the Environmental Audit Committee is second to none. It is worthy, perhaps, of a detailed meeting with the Minister before he finalises and signs off the national pollinator strategy.
	We still have concerns, some of which I think are echoed by the organisations that contributed. We welcome the work that has been done so far by the Government. The fact that we have further reservations, conditions and asks does not mean that we do not welcome what has been done, but there are various areas where further work is needed.
	We do not want to see the European Commission’s neonicotinoid ban undermined. We are aware that an application came through in the past 12 months that was withdrawn before the Government finally considered it, but it is important that the ban stays. That prompts the question: what happens at the point when the ban is reviewed? What will happen next? As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) rightly set out, the important issue is the research that will be done and the research that is set out in the draft strategy. We have major concerns relating to transparency and the independence of those doing the research. When my hon. Friends and I met in Brussels, we were surprised to hear from the Commission that some of this important research was being financed not with European money, which we felt would have given it a semblance of independence, but by the agrochemical companies. For that reason, safeguards have to be put in place.
	I hope the Minister will address the point about independence, if not now, then later, as it was not thoroughly addressed in the response to our report, which we have tagged to, and made available for, this debate. We need continual scrutiny of how close DEFRA is to the companies carrying out the research. It is one thing to have funding; it is another to contribute to the design. We need a referee—some kind of overall body—to ensure that the research is not designed only by those with vested interests.

Sarah Wollaston: I am grateful to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee for making an excellent speech. Are she and the Minister aware of the work of the AllTrials campaign by Sense about Science? In medical research, for example, one serious issue is around publication bias and whether we actually get to see all the research, not just that which gives favourable results.

Joan Walley: The Chair of the Health Select Committee makes a valid point. It is about all aspects of research, as well as peer review; and it is about commercial confidentiality, which business says prevents much of what we want to see in the public domain from being examined so that it can shape and inform our work. The scrutiny and funding of research, now and over the coming years, must be properly addressed in the final version of the national pollinator strategy.
	On the precautionary principle, the Government are using poetic licence in their interpretation of the UN’s Rio declaration and the work arising from it. As has been said, where there is not final scientific evidence, we should use the precautionary principle. This should not be trumped by economic issues; if protection is needed for habitats that cannot be protected any other way, there are times when we should follow the precautionary principle.
	Bee decline is not just about neonicotinoids; as everyone else has pointed out, including the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), whom I congratulate on the local initiative she has taken, this is about understanding how the work is done and how we can integrate the CAP work with the integrated pest management work. Friends of the Earth thinks that we could be much more ambitious and innovative in our farming methods and improving people’s understanding of how food is produced, if we could be less dependent on pesticides. That has to be worked at in the strategy.
	The strategy needs also to set out the importance of public engagement. It is precisely because there has been so much public engagement that the strategy is now almost complete, and we owe it to everyone who has campaigned in their own communities to ensure that they are not alone in taking voluntary action. Where regulation, oversight and commitment are needed, it is important that the Government show that leadership. We concluded that we were strong on the voluntary side, but weaker on where the Government could be more forceful. That needs to be taken into account before the strategy is finally signed off, because the public engagement measures will break down if the feeling is that it is not backed up by Government.
	There are other issues, which we did not mention in our report, that have been mentioned in this debate, including the role of the Department for Communities and Local Government. This is not just about farmland; it is about urban areas, green spaces, roadside verges, riverside areas and so on. It is about how we can encourage the habitat that will be needed to provide protection for the bees.
	I am conscious of time, so I simply say to the Minister that, as much as this debate is about technical issues, of which we need forensic scrutiny and proper oversight, the fact that we are talking about bees and pollinators shows that it is about something much deeper: something that connects us all to wildlife and nature. We think of all the poets and the literature—I think of W. B. Yeats’ “bee-loud glade” in “The Lake Isle of Innisfree”, and so on. That whole aspect of nature connects us to our landscape. We need an understanding here in Parliament of all that is important, so I simply ask the Minister to ensure that the national strategy is much more fit for purpose and capable of being extended as time goes on and that we gain more from research. If that is the case, the work our Committee has done will have achieved some success.

Roger Williams: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for securing this important debate. I know that many Members of Parliament have an interest in it, and I also congratulate the Select Committees involved on the work they have done.
	Next Wednesday, 22 October, hon. Members are all welcome to come to Brecon and Radnorshire day, and I hope Peter Guthrie will be bringing along some of his honey for us to taste. We live in an area of rather less intensive farming than some of the more arable areas, so I do not think there will be any pollution from insecticides. Please do come along.
	When the consultation on the strategy was launched, it itemised five fairly simple ideas, which I still think are very strong as far as pollinators are concerned. The first was to grow more nectar and pollen-rich flowers—we have heard all about that—whether on field boundaries or by local authorities. The second was to let patches of land grow wild. As we travel around Britain, we see lots land that could be left uncultivated and do a good job for biodiversity. The third idea was to cut grass less frequently and perhaps not so early. That is another message for local authorities. Then there was not disturbing insect nests or hibernating insects and thinking carefully about whether to use a pesticide. I am sure that the strategy will go into more details, but those ideas sit at the foundation of our approach to this problem.
	Much has been made of the contribution that pollinators make to agriculture, yet it has been difficult to get a figure or set of figures that anybody can agree upon. I am of the opinion that maintaining biodiversity and maintaining pollinators is a good thing in itself. My fear is that some figures might come forward showing that pollination does not play such a big part in agriculture, which might undermine our argument. In fact, I received a very good briefing from Friends of the Earth, which contained one sentence that I was very taken with:
	“A scientific review of pollination services in 41 countries across Europe found that the UK only has a quarter of the honey bees it needs for pollination”.
	That struck me as an extraordinarily disturbing figure, so I e-mailed Friends of the Earth last night. They came back with an answer that said, “Well, we don’t know how close we are to the tipping point,” but surely if we have only a quarter of the bees anyway—I am not quite sure about the other pollinators—that puts us in a very precarious position.
	That compares with reports in yesterday’s papers that we have had the biggest bumper crop of apples that we have ever had. One thing for certain is that the apple crop needs pollination by insects.
	It is difficult to correlate all these issues, which is why I support everyone who has said that we need a well co-ordinated approach to research. People in the agri-chemical industry must work openly and transparently along with others who are commissioning research.

Neil Carmichael: Does my hon. Friend agree when I say—or at least assert—that if we get a proper plan that works for bees and is seen to be working for bees in this country, other countries will take it on as a code of good practice? That would be extraordinarily good for them as it would be for us.

Roger Williams: I entirely agree. Co-ordination is needed not just within this country, but in other countries, to ensure that the research is productive and can be applied to encourage more pollinators.
	Let me say a few words about the systemic neonicotinoids that have been banned in this country and across the EU for two years. I am not sure what figures are most accurate on the reduction in yield, but I do know that the flea beetle is a persistent offender, which can be detrimental to young crops, particularly to oilseed rape and other brassicas. It has been reported that farmers, rather than have just one application of this systemic neonicotinoid, are in fact spraying three or four times in order to safeguard the establishment of their crop. We believe that some of these sprays, such as the synthetic pyrethroids and the organo-phosphates, can be as damaging to pollinators as the neonicotinoids.
	These issues are very complicated, so putting into practice any effective pollinator strategy is going to take money—and most of it is going to come out of the common agricultural policy—so that we encourage farmers to do such things as allowing field margins to remain uncultivated. Even more important is active management of those field margins to ensure that flowers and plants can be used by pollinators, but again that is going to cost quite a bit of money.
	Let me raise with the Minister an issue I have raised a number of times before—the measly allocation of pillar two money for the United Kingdom. Normally, in most European countries, the ratio of pillar one money, which is the direct payments, to pillar two is 3:1; in Britain, it is 10:1. Our allocation of pillar two money for the next financial horizon is going to be only about £2.2 billion, which has to be spread between conservation and improving competition and marketing in the farming community and rural areas.

Bob Stewart: Is that pillar two money decided in Brussels? Do we have any influence on it? Can we do anything about it, or do we just have to sit and wait for a decision from Brussels?

Roger Williams: It is decided in Brussels, but the real problem is that it is decided on a historical basis. We have had low allocations of pillar two money for many years. It is believed that if the allocation were made on an objective basis, such as according to the amount of agricultural land, the number of people involved in agriculture or the number of forests, we would have at least 100% more pillar two money. It is tied up with complex issues such as our rebate and the Fontainebleau agreement. When the CAP was renegotiated, I thought that all these figures would be based on objective factors rather than historical factors. However, we have ended up with a £2.2 billion allocation, while France has £8.8 billion and Germany £7.8 billion. It is no wonder that the farming unions are trying to resist modulation and the green non-governmental organisations are going for higher modulation. If the farming unions had co-operated with the green NGOs and gone for a bigger allocation of pillar two money, we should not have had all that argument.
	I am not sure whether anything can be done—it seems that the figures have been agreed to—but I think that that was a real disaster, and one of the programmes that could suffer as a result of it is the pollinator strategy, which
	desperately needs money. I understand that the new environmental land management scheme that DEFRA is introducing can be used for such purposes, and I hope the Minister will ensure that it is.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Three more Members wish to speak. I must tell them that I intend the Front-Bench speeches to begin at 4.40 pm.

Kerry McCarthy: Let me add my voice to those of the Members who have already welcomed the introduction of a national pollinator strategy—although with a degree of impatience, given that we do not yet have the final version.
	I had intended to focus for a while on pesticides and, in particular, on my concerns about lobbying by chemical companies and whether the Government accept the scientific risk assessments, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) has more than done justice to that issue, and several other Members have mentioned it as well. In the limited time available, therefore, I shall concentrate on urban pollination, a subject that I do not think has been raised today.
	Needless to say, Bristol is at the forefront of some of the work that is currently being done. Professor Jane Memmott of the university of Bristol has drawn attention to the “huge diversity of sites” that cities contain not just gardens, but meadows, nature reserves and parks. They may, in fact, offer a greater diversity and abundance of flowers that can be found in the countryside. Modern farming practices that promote crop monocultures often leave little room for wild flowers.
	The “urban pollinators” project, led by Dr Katherine Baldock and Professor Jane Memmott at the university of Bristol in collaboration with three other UK universities, has been doing a great deal of research on just how important urban environments are. Let me quote a few statistics. Apparently, 50% of Germany’s entire bee fauna have been found in Berlin, 35% of British hoverfly species were sampled in a single Leicester garden, and honey bees produce more honey in urban Birmingham than in the surrounding countryside. The project is mapping and comparing pollinator habitats in cities, farms and nature reserves throughout the country. In Bristol, it has been working in partnership with the city council's “meadow Bristol” project to plant nectar and pollen-rich flower meadows in our public parks, school playing fields and road verges, turning them into a haven for pollinating insects among the bricks and concrete.

Glyn Davies: Let me first say how sorry I am to have missed the opening speeches, and not to have been able to make a speech myself. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene, because I can now make a point that I should have liked to make earlier. I think that golf courses throughout Britain, in both urban and rural areas, have a massive potential to deliver the results that the hon. Lady wants. Some are already starting to do so, but we need to ensure that that goes much further.

Kerry McCarthy: I do not play golf, but I have seen reports suggesting that it is the least environmentally beneficial sport because of its huge water footprint. If it can make some redress for that by planting plenty of wild flowers, it will at least be doing its bit.
	Next year Bristol will be the European green capital, and in preparation for that we are doing some exciting work under the banner “Get Bristol Buzzing”. We have a “bee summit” coming up, which some Members might like to attend. The action group is leading a greater Bristol pollinator strategy, and we are examining ways of implementing it at local level. I pay particular tribute to the St George in Bloom group. A constituent of mine, Grenville Johnson, is a really inspiring man who has done a huge amount of work for the group, and it has just been announced that it is the winner of the Royal Horticultural Society’s South West in Bloom award 2014.
	In my constituency, as in many other constituencies, this is the age of car ownership and many incredibly busy people are paving over their front gardens to give them parking spaces and going for the low maintenance option of decking-in their back gardens, as opposed to having grass and flowerbeds. Grenville is trying to reverse this trend a bit by encouraging people at least to have hanging baskets or window boxes. His street is an amazing display of bright colours hanging from the lampposts and on the grass verges. His group has been working with the residents association to create a community garden in an area of unadopted land. It has planted a wild flower meadow in St George park, and it is teaching local people basic things about gardening and how to pot plants. He has now applied for green capital funds to implement the local pollinator strategy. There are also initiatives such as providing free seeds and plants to anyone who enters the St George in Bloom competition and that will also help to attract pollinating insects.
	Bristol zoo gardens is also doing very good work, and there are projects such as Incredible Edible Bristol. In some of Bristol’s public spaces, the flowerbeds do contain flowers, but things like cabbages and kale instead. Apparently we are allowed to help ourselves to them, but I have never dared do so just in case I have got that wrong.
	I want to put three points to the Minister. I know he has limited time to reply, but I hope he will try to address them. It will obviously be extremely challenging for local authorities, non-governmental organisations and others to take the national pollinator strategy on and implement it given their work loads and financial constraints, so will he say a little about how he can ensure the visions and aims of the strategy can be achieved and maintained in the long term? The role of the planning authorities was briefly mentioned. It is important that planners and developers consider the needs of pollinators. Thirdly, does DEFRA plan to have a long-term monitoring scheme so we can judge how pollinators respond to the changes introduced under this strategy and so we can see what does and does not work, and perhaps regularly review it so that we do the things that do work?

Matthew Offord: I am very pleased to have a chance to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and
	Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing it. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley). As Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, she has been a pivotal figure on the issue of pollinators and pesticides and a driving force in enabling the Committee to consider these matters.
	I welcome the national pollinator strategy, and I am very pleased that the Government have set forward their vision and ambition, but they need to take some of their existing measures further.
	The strategy is important for several reasons. It is a tacit acknowledgement that over 20 species of bee have died in the past 100 years or so, and since 1985 the number of honey bees in this country has declined by almost half. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) was the Minister, I asked about the cost of replacing bees with hand pollination. I was grateful that the Government came back with an answer: the university of Reading undertook some research and concluded it would be £1.8 billion—a cost that would fall on consumers.
	In addition, the Government have acknowledged that 84% of plant reproduction and 76% of food crop production in Europe depends on pollination by bees. It is clearly, therefore, a very important issue for this country.
	I am pleased the Government are concerned about the bee decline. Bees are not only important for food production; they are also important for biodiversity and for their intrinsic value to many of our constituents. A point was made about Friends of the Earth and people having their picture taken next to a bee, and many people in my constituency—in a suburban seat in London—have e-mailed me to tell me how concerned they are about the decline in the bee population.
	The NPS also acknowledges that this is not just about bees but about all pollinators—hoverflies, butterflies, moths, beetles—and carrion and flesh flies, which play an important role on many of our country roads in respect of animals that are knocked down. Even mammals such as bats, which are specialised pollinators in their own right, play a role.
	The Government also acknowledge that many of us have a role to play. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) mentioned local authorities. When I was a cabinet member in and deputy leader of Barnet council, I introduced the policy of bringing the countryside into the city. There were parts of Sunny Hill park that I told contractors not to cut. We took that approach for the simple reason that it would attract hoverflies, butterflies and all the other pollinators that would encourage pollination within Hendon and other parts of my constituency.
	The NPS also acknowledges the role of research and review, and commits to more studies to understand the economic and social value of pollinators. I am keen for the Government continue to do that work. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) mentioned the review of the NPS in 2019, but I wish to draw the House’s attention to the 2013 decision to ban neonicotinoids in Europe. The Government were not keen on that at the time. They said that they would
	continue to interpret that principle on the basis of both economic and environmental considerations. I hope that they do that and do not override some decisions on the basis of a reliance on commercial rather than scientific research. I do not want the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to abrogate its capacity to deliver on its environmental protection obligations, so I hope that that part of the strategy will continue to be followed.
	I wish to mention four areas I would like the Government and the Minister to consider. As has been said, various changes have led to a reduction in pollinators, including the presence of invasive species, climate change, and biodiversity and habitat loss. We can, however, have an immediate effect in one area—planning. I would like the Department for Communities and Local Government to put greater emphasis on taking pollinators into account in its planning guidance. One of the main causes of the decline in pollinators relates to their ability to find food and shelter. There is a lot of poorly planned development in different parts of the country by local authorities and developers that causes further decline, and I want the situation turned around. I am aware that the plan includes some measures to deliver a step change in land management, but I want the Government to give us further clarity on that to illustrate how planning and development can affect habitats that pollinators need and how the current system can better plan for them.
	I would also like the Government to consider agriculture itself. I would like to see them assisting farmers to cultivate pollinators. More than 70% of the land in this country is devoted to farming, and what happens on farm land is pivotal to whether bees and pollinators survive and revive. Farmers do what they can—I acknowledge that they do great things to provide pollinators—but I would like to hear what the Government intend to do to provide assistance. The draft NPS is too reliant on voluntary farming measures. Given the historically low take-up of these voluntary measures and low level of adoption of pollinator-specific actions in agri-environment schemes, the Government could go a lot further. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) mentioned making CAP reform work for nature, and it would also lay the foundation for the pest management regime.
	The Environmental Audit Committee highlighted the integrated pest management scheme. The draft NPS does include measures to promote the pest management scheme to reduce the risks to bees of pesticide use, but it needs to be clearer about what is additional to the existing action and how that will be targeted to help bees. The definition of the IPM in the draft NPS does not refer to reducing pesticide use, yet the EU rules require that priority is to be given to non-chemical methods of pest control. We need a clear ambition to minimise over-dependence on pesticides. If we do not undertake that, the conditions for pollinators are unlikely to change. The IPM can help the UK to move to pesticides being used less, in a smarter, more targeted way, and as a last resort and not as a matter of course. So, again, farmers need more assistance in their approaches to pesticides, particularly in respect of crop pest resistance to insecticides and the NPS overall.
	I wish to finish by discussing community partnerships. We all know that many groups and civil organisations are keen to work with the NPS, but I do not want the
	Government to rely too heavily on voluntary initiatives or outside bodies that have limited accountability lines and then not be able to put across their vision and deliver the aspirational intentions of the NPS. I believe that we can protect our bees and we have an opportunity to do so, but we need to do it in a way that transforms how our communities respond and react to their local environments.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am also a member of the Environmental Audit Committee and, like the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), I pay tribute to the Chair of that Committee for the way in which she has led us and managed to get unanimous support on an issue that can often be quite controversial.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned most of the points that I was going to make in my speech, so I can be very brief. First, let me endorse what he said about the need for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to be able to rely not just on industry-funded research but on independent peer reviewed research. Companies must do research and it must be taken into account, but clearly it cannot be the major source on which the Government rely. The Government clearly need to move further in that regard.
	The important issue of what changes in the agricultural support mechanism at the European level can be brought about was raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). There is concern that not enough is being done under the strategy to reach out to the majority of farmers who need to be reached if this strategy is going to be put into effect. With regard to changes, possibly to European funding arrangements, some of that is devolved in practice. However, it is also an area in which Europe-wide policy needs to be changed, and that will have an impact on the devolved Administrations and on the administration of agricultural support as well. I am interested to know what the Minister has to say in that regard.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire that a report or a strategy does not really show how we will achieve the objective of reducing pesticide use. Again, the Government need to do more on that, and I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said.
	Finally, I should like the Minister to answer a mystery that I have been trying to work out for a while. When the Environmental Audit Committee visited Brussels a couple of years ago, we were asked by a Commission official about why the UK had stopped seeking funding from the Commission for research on bee health issues. Apparently, the UK Government had not sought further funding, even though it was actually available from the Commission. I asked a number of parliamentary questions on the matter, and it seemed that the UK’s funding had indeed been reduced. There were different views as to why among scientific experts at DEFRA who gave evidence at one Committee. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on the matter. Will he tell us, as a pro-European Member of the Government, whether the UK has stopped asking for funding from the Commission, when it has been available to deal with issues such as bee health? I am sure that he agrees that
	such an issue needs to be addressed not just within the UK, but at a European level. I am sure that even Members who are not pro-Europe would not want to turn down European money if it were available. I would be grateful to the Minister if he gave us an update on what is happening, and whether there is the possibility of the UK getting more funding from the European Commission on this important issue of bee health.

Barry Gardiner: I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this important debate. She spoke with eminent good sense and with what I would characterise as quiet passion. Other Members who have contributed to this debate have made really telling points. I am talking about my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), and for Hendon (Dr Offord) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). It has been an excellent debate.
	When I was a child, my mother used to pay me half a crown to wash her car each week—you, Mr Speaker, will probably remember it as 12 and a half pence, as half a crown is probably before your time. I used to wash every bit of the car, except for one particular piece at the front, which was about 1 foot square. I kept that as a before and after shot to show my mother what a good job I had done, and I chose that particular spot at the front of the car because it was always covered in thousands of dead insects.

Mr Speaker: Order. Either the hon. Gentleman’s mother was a notably frugal custodian of the family purse, or, alternatively, the hon. Gentleman is some years older than me. Possibly, the House might conclude, that both of those statements are true.

Barry Gardiner: My mother was certainly very frugal, but she did need her car washing every week, and it was, every week, covered in dead insects. Sadly, the cars are no longer covered in thousands of dead insects. We have cleaner cars today, but the insects are gone.

David Heath: I just wanted to respond to Mr Speaker’s interjection by saying that when I was a boy, half a crown would buy an entire gallon of Somerset cider.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman is indicating only how much older he is than I am, and also perhaps that he had more of a penchant for things that my mother certainly would not have allowed me. I was not in any way allowed half a gallon of Somerset cider; half a pint of carrot juice was more like it.
	As the insects have disappeared, so have the birds. As the insects continue to disappear, so will the yield from our crops.

Barry Sheerman: Did my hon. Friend see the beautiful article by Caitlin Moran in The Times last Saturday in which she eloquently begged to have bird song back again? She was making the same point as my hon. Friend.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will know my penchant for whistling around the place, emulating those very birds he wants to return.
	The impact on our crops of the insects continuing to disappear has been calculated at more than £600 million a year. Some insecticides that farmers use to increase yield kill not only the insects that destroy the crops, but those that pollinate them. I would welcome a pollinator strategy from the Government—we have a draft strategy—if it understood that the decline in the ecosystem services that pollinators provide cannot be dealt with unless that is done on an ecosystem-wide basis.
	Popular though the campaign may be, this is not just all about the bees, as Members have said. Yes, colony collapse disorder is serious and, yes, the varroa mite is a problem, as are the acarine mite and nosema apis, and fungal diseases such as chalkbrood and stonebrood, but the fundamental problems that have resulted in the decline of pollinators across the board are much more plain and simple. Since the 1930s, 97% of our wild flower meadows have been lost. If one of the fundamental habitats providing a food source to pollinators is taken away, is it any wonder that we see a decline in butterflies, moths, beetles and other pollinators?
	I congratulate the whole NGO coalition, especially Buglife and Friends of the Earth, on campaigning extensively for a national pollinator strategy. The NGOs understand this, as does the Environmental Audit Committee in its excellent report. They have spoken clearly about how changes in land management over the past century represent one of the major causes of pollinator loss. The Government should do more than pay them lip service, as they did in their response to the Select Committee’s report. Many of the groups have a larger membership than all the political parties represented in the Chamber put together, and their bee campaigns have involved hundreds of thousands of people devoting their time for our natural environment. That is marvellous, so the Government need to respond positively.
	The Government have the power to halt the decline of our natural environment. Delivering a pollinator strategy is a critical part of that, so we should ask what this Government’s record has been. They opposed the European ban on neonicotinoids and supported efforts to undermine it. They said that a ban could cripple the economy, thus ignoring the direct value of pollination services to UK farmers and the natural environment. That was proof, if anyone still needed it, that for this Government the environment and the economy are always seen as being in conflict, although they are not. The Government’s decision to withdraw from a pan-European research project on honey bee decline was further evidence of their allergy to sound science.
	They failed to include pollinator-specific measures in their so-called greening of agricultural subsidy in the CAP.
	There seems to be a dangerous idea—clung to by some in the Government—that they have to sacrifice our environment and well-being for the sake of achieving short-term economic growth. In fact, economists now tell us that economic growth depends upon natural capital. This Government have acted with absolute consistency against the science and failed to adopt a fully ecosystem-based way of working that displays the true value of the natural capital upon which all growth depends. There are three key decisions that they could
	have taken: the decision to adopt a science-based policy on insecticides; the decision to acquire new evidence on pollinator decline; and the decision to create space for nature in precisely the way that John Lawton set out in his report.
	We need to embrace a new, restorative approach that rebuilds nature and creates a more resilient natural environment for the benefit of wildlife and ourselves. We need coherent ecological networks if we are to conserve wildlife and landscapes that have become fragmented as a result of human activity. An ecological network must be comprehensive enough to hold a suite of high-quality sites that collectively contain the diversity and amount of habitat needed to support species. There must be ecological connections between those sites to enable species—or, in the case of plants, their genes—to move.

Caroline Spelman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for being unable to attend the debate from the start because of other duties. When I was Secretary of State, we established “Making space for nature”, and I went with John Lawton to parts of the west midlands to create those important areas. The question is one of joining up to get the landscape scale, and I agree about that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a clear view of what has been achieved thus far.

Barry Gardiner: I respect the right hon. Lady, and she will know that I have always tried to give credit where it is due in the Department. I have given credit to her, in particular, for the way she advanced the natural capital approach. However, I think that there are severe lacunas in the Department’s approach and that we need a much more joined-up approach, in relation to implementing an ecosystem-based way of working in the Department and to joining up across Government. I am sure that is a problem she has faced many times in trying to persuade colleagues across Government. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) talked about the importance of planning, for example, and I am sure that the right hon. Lady will have had her own run-ins with DCLG. I hope that she does not feel that the criticisms I am making are unfair.
	The Lawton report summarised the step change that the previous Labour Government made in 2006 when we moved to an ecosystem-based approach, which was essential to mainstreaming our conservation priorities across Government. Sir John’s report spoke about the role of insects in the following way. It states that they are
	“the little things that make the world work… vital components of natural food chains (as food for larger organisms and as pollinators for example) and many deliver other vital ecosystem services… It would be unwise to assume we can do without them. Basically, what we are doing is unravelling the fabric of nature. These are local examples on one small part of the planet, of the growing, global ‘biodiversity crisis’.”
	In their response to the Environment Audit Committee, the Government basically set out a voluntarist approach that asked the House to trust them. They now have a draft of a pollinator strategy. There is an election coming and people want to be seen to be doing something positive. The 2015 general election is unprecedented. For the first time, people will be able to judge all the major parties on what they have recently achieved in government as well as on what they promise in their
	manifestos. I am confident that there will be a triumph of experience over hope—what Labour actually achieved in government against what the Conservatives and Lib Dems promised and then failed to deliver.
	In 2010, the country did not vote for continuity, except in one thing: Labour’s approach to our environment. The coalition said that it was signed up to Labour’s Climate Change Act 2008. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats committed themselves to delivering on the Lawton report and the national ecosystems assessment that we commissioned on the back of it. They even said that they were committed to the Pitt review that Labour had commissioned after the 2007 floods. Well, we saw last winter what had happened to that.
	The Environmental Audit Committee has an in-built majority for the Government parties, but on the basis of its environmental scorecard it looked carefully at what this Government have done and gave them a red card on biodiversity. Under this Government, with a Lib Dem responsible for the natural environment, essential work to improve our natural environment has become “green crap”, and we have seen the extraordinary spectacle of a former Secretary of State trawling around the broadcast studios telling all and sundry that he does not believe in half the policies that, as a member of the Cabinet, he was previously responsible for delivering. Unfortunately, this Government’s record on the environment does not lead anyone to trust them. The report, “State of Nature”, and Wildlife and Countryside Link’s report, “Nature Check”, show that the decline in biodiversity is getting worse. That is how we should judge this Minister’s party when it promises to give us a legal target for biodiversity. The Minister must accept that his draft pollinator strategy is neither adequate nor deliverable.
	The EAC’s report correctly criticised the Government’s reliance on industry-funded research and voluntary measures. In fact, what it said was damning. It talked of
	“excessive reliance on the commercial (rather than scientific) research priorities”—

Mr Speaker: Order. I have no wish to interrupt the flow of the hon. Gentleman’s eloquence or, indeed, the eloquence of his flow, but I feel cautiously optimistic that he is approaching his peroration.

Barry Gardiner: I am certainly approaching my conclusion, Mr Speaker—thank you for your guidance.
	The Committee talked of
	“excessive reliance on the commercial (rather than scientific) research priorities”
	of the industry bodies and said that that was
	“symptomatic of a loss of DEFRA’s capacity to deliver its environmental protection obligations”.
	There is no point in DEFRA’s merely reviewing the research that the agro-chemicals industry decides it wants to carry out when that is not the research that the public need. DEFRA must set out the type of data it requires and the parameters of such research in order to safeguard the environment. A Labour Secretary of State in DEFRA would set out clearly the need to establish baseline data on the health of our pollinator population and use those data to target a series of measures to reverse the declines in our ecosystem services capacity.

Mr Speaker: Order. The remaining page and a half can be deposited in the Library and possibly photocopied for the benefit of all right hon. and hon. Members—and communicated via the worldwide web, which waits expectantly. I call the Minister, Dan Rogerson.

Dan Rogerson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have been waiting patiently and listening to the many important contributions we have heard, including some of the earlier remarks by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), although he then went off a bit into whatever had been prepared for him elsewhere.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), a fellow Cornish MP, for giving us the chance to debate this subject. I welcome the opportunity to highlight what the Government have been doing to support our pollinators and our plans for the publication of the national pollinator strategy for England later in the autumn. I congratulate all the other hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I will return to some of their remarks in what little time I have before we allow my hon. Friend to conclude the debate. First, I will set out some of the actions that the Government have been taking.
	All of us across the House know of the importance of bees and other pollinators. They are vital for our environment, for food production and for biodiversity, and the Government take very seriously any threat to them. Evidence suggests that many species of our pollinators are less abundant and widespread than they were in the 1950s. However, as we do not know exactly how many wild pollinators we have now, or how many we had in the past, it is difficult to be certain about the rates or the detailed causes of change. We do know that the threats that pollinators face are many, including, as others have said, habitat loss, disease, extreme weather, climate change, and the use of some pesticides. It is likely that a combination of threats could be affecting their diversity, with loss of habitat linked to intensification of agriculture and urbanisation a key factor. The Government therefore continue to take action on a range of fronts to protect pollinators.
	In our strategy, “Biodiversity 2020”, we have set ourselves the challenging outcome of achieving an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and preventing further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species. We have supported 12 nature improvement areas in becoming better places for wildlife by creating more and better connected habitats. Flower-rich grasslands are recognised as habitats of principal importance for conservation. “Biodiversity 2020” includes an aim to increase priority habitats by 200,000 hectares, and species-rich grasslands are included in that ambition. In addition, almost 100,000 hectares of grasslands, likely to support pollinators, are already protected as sites of special scientific interest.
	We recognise that there will still be a need for targeted conservation action for our most threatened species: 17 species of bees, together with many other pollinators, are considered as priority species for conservation. Natural England’s species recovery programme is designed to help, with projects to support priority species such as the short-haired bumblebee.
	Hon. Members have discussed the contribution we can make under the common agricultural policy and agro-environment schemes, which are key ways of securing benefits for pollinators. Options to encourage pollinators in current environmental stewardship agreements cover 60,000 hectares, including buffer strips, pollen and nectar mixtures, wild bird seed mixtures, hay meadows and wild flower areas, and the evidence that those actions attract pollinators is good. In the new scheme, to which we are putting the finishing touches, we aim to produce a more effective outcome for pollinators.
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to support beekeepers through funding of the National Bee Unit, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), the former Minister, has referred. The unit provides free training in disease diagnosis and management, and supports beekeeping associations in their work to improve bee husbandry skills across the country.
	Pesticides are tightly regulated under European Union rules. Possible harm to non-target species is a key part of the risk assessment required before those products are authorised, and those risk assessments and authorisation decisions are also the subject of regular review.
	I had hoped to make many other points, but I may struggle to do so in the time available. I will attempt to respond to some of the points that were raised during the debate. I think that most of us agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth about the importance of evidence. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said that we should get on with it because we know what the problems are. That is entirely true and we want to make sure that we invest the available resources in tackling the right causes in the most effective way possible, in order to support the recovery of some of these species and to protect them. We need to measure which species have problems and how serious they are so that we can inform our actions.
	My hon. Friend also referred to imported bees and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, asked whether they are muscling out other bees. When bees are brought in on a commercial basis to help pollination, we encourage non-native species to be used in polytunnels and glass houses. In fact, 50% of the bumble bees that are brought in are of a native strain—similar bees are to be found in our own natural environment—even though they are produced overseas.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test spoke of his desire for the ban on neonicotinoids to be extended
	for ever. We have discussed evidence and the importance of making sure that we get it right. There is a ban in place and the Government are working along those lines, as is the industry. We take this very seriously, but we have to make sure that we keep the evidence under review.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned problems regarding the voluntary nature of many of the interventions. It is absolutely right that we work with the industries, as well as local authorities, voluntary organisations and non-governmental organisations, that can help us gather evidence and make sure that we take action on planting and re-wilding some areas. I am sure hon. Members will receive urgent lobbying from the golf course sector in the light of some of today’s contributions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) made a very good point. In order to implement a strategy and make a difference, we will need to work together, so we need to encourage the agricultural sector, NGOs, beekeepers, land managers and others who are active in their communities and their own homes to do so. If we work together, we can begin to deliver and turn around the potential decline in the vital pollinators in our natural environment.

Sarah Newton: I thank hon. Members for attending this debate and making such thoughtful contributions, particularly the members of the Environmental Audit Committee and its eminent Chair. The debate has been a very good illustration of the success of the reforms introduced during this Parliament. Select Committees play such an important role and the Backbench Business debates give us an opportunity to raise important issues on behalf of our constituents and improve Government policy.
	What do we want? We want the national pollinator strategy. When do we want it? We want it now.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the National Pollinator Strategy.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	House of Commons Governance

Ordered,
	That Sir Oliver Heald, Mr David Heath, Jesse Norman, Ian Paisley, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Valerie Vaz and Mr Dave Watts be members of the House of Commons Governance Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

UK GOVERNMENT: SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

Gordon Brown: I have a petition to present to the House—signed by 120,000 people in Scotland, yes voters and no voters in the referendum alike—which shows that people are determined that the vow made by all the three main party leaders on the Tuesday before the referendum is kept. It was organised by 38 Degrees, whom I congratulate on its initiative. Its preamble regrets, and indeed opposes, the Prime Minister’s attempt on the day after the referendum to amend the vow on Scotland’s future, and asks him to keep to his original vow free of any new conditions.
	Today’s debate becomes even more relevant after what the Leader of the House—I am pleased that he is with us in the Chamber—said on Tuesday when he made it clear that he intends to move ahead with what he called English votes for English laws. In my brief speech, I want to show that that would in effect reduce the rights of Scottish representatives at Westminster. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who is also with us, for replying to the debate.
	Today, I want to look at where we can agree, rather than where we disagree, to see whether it is possible to move beyond an agreement simply on the timetable to one on the powers of the Scottish Parliament, and whether there is a will on all sides of the House to resolve issues of English as well as Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland representation and rights. In an attempt to be constructive, I will put forward five suggestions that might help to avoid what must never be allowed to become a constitutional impasse in this House and this country.
	First, I believe that we can all agree on 16 new powers for the Scottish Parliament, which range from devolution of attendance allowance and housing benefit, which have been agreed by all parties, to the conduct of elections. There are areas where we would have to ask the Conservatives to accept Labour and Liberal Democrat proposals, covering the entrenchment of the Scottish Parliament in the constitution and new powers over the Work programme, the Crown Estate, the rail franchise, borrowing for infrastructure, and Executive authority for UK health and safety, equalities and employment law. There are also areas where I would ask Labour and the Liberal Democrats to accept Conservative proposals—those for a fiscal commission and for an annual statement for taxpayers on how and where the Scottish Parliament’s money is spent. Given what each party have said in their submissions and afterwards, I believe that there is scope for agreement on every one of these new powers. I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he also believes that that can happen.
	Secondly, on tax, the three remaining powers out of the 16 relate to income tax, fairness in taxation and VAT. There is general agreement that we should devolve, first, a wider power to set an income tax rate in Scotland, and secondly, a power to set top rates of tax too. I suggest, however—I will explain why in a minute—that we should reject the 100% devolution of income tax. We should instead agree to retain income tax as a shared tax across the United Kingdom, with 75% of it devolved
	to the Scottish Parliament, alongside the devolution of 50% of VAT revenues. That will ensure that the test of accountability is met, with the Scottish Parliament being responsible for raising the majority—54%—of its spending in 2016, the year in which the proposals would be implemented.
	Thirdly, and I would like to think that we can all agree on this, the status of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in this House should not be downgraded. As was recognised by the Strathclyde commission—I want the Leader of the House to read that report from his party—in contradiction to statements subsequently made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, Scottish MPs, like Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs, should continue to vote on all issues that come to the Floor of the House of Commons. This is what the Conservative party said in evidence before the referendum:
	“In our view, it is important that any sense be resisted that MPs for Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish constituencies somehow perform any lesser a function than MPs representing seats in England. The establishment of stable constitutional arrangements for the future of the UK must address this. It would be unfortunate if the feeling were to gain ground that there were two classes of MP. Even under a scheme of enhanced devolution, such as we have proposed in this report, MPs for Scottish constituencies will continue to have significant responsibility for safeguarding the interests of those whom they represent.”
	It was therefore not the intention of the Conservative party before the referendum to withdraw Scottish Members of Parliament from voting on tax laws or other laws within the UK. That, and not the current position that the Prime Minister expresses, should be our guide in resolving these issues.
	I have always said that we should be prepared to consider a change in Committee procedures on England-only Bills, under which English MPs would form the Committee that debates them. However, we should insist —I will explain why later—that when any Bill comes to the Floor of the House on Report or on Second or Third Reading, the whole House and nothing but the whole House is able to vote.
	My fourth proposal is that we should agree that the case exists for far-reaching changes in our constitution. That requires a public debate, which could take the form of a convention that engages all the regions and nations, and civic society. The Secretary of State will be able to answer for this, but I believe that the Liberal Democrats agree with the Labour party on that course.
	Finally, we should all agree that we must focus not simply on the constitution, but on the issues that were raised in the referendum by the citizens of Scotland, not just in respect of the powers of the Scottish and UK Parliaments, but in respect of what we do with those powers. How we can create better jobs and a better national health service, and how we can wage a war against poverty as part of our commitment to social justice—those are the policy issues that were raised in the referendum and we should give our attention to them immediately.
	The constitutional crisis that is in the making—for that is what it is—has to be addressed. I am pleased that the Leader of the House is listening. The crisis arises from the statement that was made by the Prime Minister the morning after the referendum, when he promised English votes for English laws. In practice, the proposal turns out not to be any new English rights of representation,
	but a reduction in Scottish rights of representation in this House of Commons. That issue was clearly material to the referendum. It is the failure to tell people of the proposed change in Scottish representation before the vote that has fuelled the demonstrations, petitions and allegations of bad faith, betrayal and breach of promise that have dominated too much of the Scottish political debate since the referendum.
	Conservative Members should understand that the Conservative plans for the constitution do not end there. Under the proposal to devolve all income tax to the Scottish Parliament, Scottish MPs would be removed not just from ordinary law-making on English matters, but from the most decisive votes that a Parliament can have—votes on income tax rates and, thus, on passing the Budget. With Wales on the point of demanding income tax powers and Northern Ireland seeking corporation tax powers, we could find, at a stroke, that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs are excluded from the right to vote in Westminster on Budget and key tax decisions. In the end, that might extend to London, which is also seeking its own powers of taxation.
	The proposal to devolve 100% of income tax and then to exclude Scottish MPs from voting on income tax is, in my view, both anti-Scottish and anti-British. It is anti-Scottish because it would exclude Scots from voting on key matters and make them second-class citizens in the House. It is anti-British because it would abandon income tax as a shared tax and because it threatens to end the whole system of pooling and sharing resources across the United Kingdom that underpins the unity of the United Kingdom. It looks like a Trojan horse for fiscal autonomy, which would split the Union and enable the SNP to get through the back door what it cannot get through the front door in a vote of the Scottish people.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Gordon Brown: England makes up 84% of the Union. Scotland makes up 8%, Wales 5% and Northern Ireland 3%. When that is translated into Members of Parliament, the 533 English Members can outvote the 117 parliamentarians from the rest of the UK at any time and routinely if they choose. The English predominance is so great that every generation has had to balance the power of the majority to impose its will with some protection for the interests of the minority nations.
	America, Australia, Spain, Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil, Germany and many other countries, through their constitutions, have found ways to manage the gross inequalities in the sizes of their regions, provinces or nations. The provisions that those countries make for minority states or regions show that a blanket uniformity of provision, such as English votes for English laws simply mimicking Scottish votes for Scottish laws, does not ensure fairness of treatment.
	The House knows from our debate on Tuesday that in America, the smallest state of just half a million people has the same number of Senators as the largest state of 38 million people. Tasmania, the smallest state in Australia with 700,000 people, has the same Senate representation—12—as New South Wales, which has 7 million people. This is true of the Spanish Senate, the Swiss Council of States, the South African National Council of Provinces, and the Brazilian, Nigerian and
	Mexican Senates. In Germany, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia—in a constitution written by the UK—has about 30 times the population of the state of Bremen, but only double the number of Bundesrat seats. We are not unique. Countries have to make special arrangements that recognise the position of minority nations or regions, and ensure that uniformity of provision is not the means to ensure equality and fairness of treatment.

Dominic Raab: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and recognise his tenacious defence of the Union. May I ask him about money and the issue of equality he has raised? As a result of the Barnett formula, Scotland has double the ambulance staff and nurses per person that England has, and Wales gets a third less spending on social services for the elderly. By ruling out any change or review of Barnett—I appreciate that that is what the vow involves—the right hon. Gentleman is sending a message to the elderly, the patients and the vulnerable in my constituency that somehow they matter less. What would he say to them?

Gordon Brown: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman as he has not read what the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats said, as well as the leader of the Labour party. It was not me who committed us to the Barnett formula; it was them. The Barnett formula exists to allocate resources according to need across the whole United Kingdom. Let us be clear—this is the issue at stake—that there is no country in the world whose Parliament has a first and second class of representatives. There is no democratic state in the world, federal or otherwise, where one part of the country pays its income tax to the national Government, and another part does not, yet those are the two proposals of the Conservative party. It would be strange if this House, which is known as and calls itself the mother of Parliaments and is a worldwide beacon for fairness and equality before the law, became the first law-making body in the world to decree two classes—a first and second class—of representation.
	If this were only about the rights of Members of Parliament, it might remain an insiders’ issue among the political elite. But the designation of elected representatives as first and second-class citizens is not simply about the sensitivities of a few politicians, but about the status of each nation in what has hitherto been one United Kingdom. According a first-class status to England, but a second-class status to Scotland—and possibly then to Wales and Northern Ireland—is bad enough, but the effect of that is that the Government of the day would also be a servant of two masters, and not sure whether their continuation depended from one day to the next on English votes or the votes of the whole United Kingdom. Government Members might find it appealing that no MP from a Scottish seat could, under such a system, ever again be Chancellor or Prime Minister of this country, but if I may say so, that is closing the door 20 years too late.
	This change would also contradict the Conservatives’ devolution commission report that I mentioned earlier:
	“Scottish MPs are and must remain as qualified as any other to hold high Government office, including the offices of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer.”
	That is not my view but the view of the Conservative party report from the Strathclyde Commission.
	In conclusion, there is a way forward that listens to more sensible voices; a way forward that starts with a balanced programme of devolution that maintains income tax as a shared tax, is built around a sensible accommodation on exclusively English Bills, and is open not only to devolution within England—including to the powerful cities and regions of the country—but also to a wider debate about what kind of constitution our country needs. What Scotland has shown is that it is possible to engage the public in a debate about the distribution of power in our own country. Therefore, as the debate about English cities and regions and the future of the British constitution gathers pace, the constitutional convention that the Leader of the Opposition has proposed makes a great deal of sense.
	Under the last Labour Government, we brought citizens together to debate how their rights could be respected. By extending that process to a constitutional convention that embraces every region, nation and civic group, the voice of England would be heard. It would be heard not in angry opposition to the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but alongside them as part of securing what I want to see with the proposals we are putting forward today: a better future for all nations and regions as part of one United Kingdom.

Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing today’s debate. Further, I congratulate, and commend him, on the role he played in the course of the independence referendum campaign. Nobody who heard his speeches and witnessed his passion and enthusiasm would have been in any doubt about the importance of the contribution he made in securing a united future for us all on 18 September. I know that he, like me, felt that he was fighting a campaign not just for himself but for his children and their generation. I venture to suggest that his contribution to it gives him a legacy of which they, in time, will come to be truly proud.
	I want to make a few observations on the general state of the debate today. Shortly thereafter I will come on to address the points that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. This has been a week when the topic of the referendum and its consequences have never been far from the Chamber. This is the fourth day this week, in fact, that I have been at the Dispatch Box. I welcome that. It is a good and right thing for the United Kingdom Parliament to be considering this issue.
	Right hon. and hon. Members across the House have expressed their support for our still United Kingdom, a good illustration of what it means to be part of a country that shares risks and pools its resources. Scotland has come through years of fundamental uncertainty. The referendum outcome has put an end to it. With a positive choice from more than 2 million people in Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom, now is the time for us all to put aside party interests and to work to build a better United Kingdom for all: a future with a strong Scottish Parliament within a secure United Kingdom, because that was the clear verdict handed down by the people of Scotland.
	The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister said during the campaign that, in their view, the referendum was a once-in-a-generation, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime, event. Both Governments agreed from the outset that the objective was to hold a referendum that would be legal, fair and decisive. That referendum was delivered. But decisive means that a decision has been made, not that the question should be asked again in three years’ time. Had the result gone the other way, it would have been considered unacceptable for those of us who campaigned to keep the United Kingdom together to demand a re-run in 2017, and so it is wrong now for nationalists to manoeuvre for that outcome. People voted clearly and decisively to reject the Scottish National party’s core proposition. It is not for anyone to tell them that they got their answer wrong. Uncertainty will only try people’s patience and sap business confidence, just as it did in Montreal. The SNP has been given an answer by voters in Scotland. Now is the time to acknowledge and accept it and work in the interests of 100% of the people of Scotland.

Pete Wishart: I grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, unlike the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). It took two hours for the Prime Minister to come up with English votes for English laws after the referendum. It has now taken four weeks for the Barnett formula. Seventy Members of Parliament have signed a motion for a debate for Barnett to be reviewed. Barnett was in the vow. Is Barnett safe?

Alistair Carmichael: Yes. Barnett is safe, because it was in the vow. I caution the hon. Gentleman. He seeks time and again to suggest that, somehow or another, the vow made by the party leaders—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked his question, now he can sit and listen to the answer. He says time and again that somehow the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister were not acting in the good faith. He seeks at every turn to undermine public confidence in the vow. If he still wants to pursue the cause of independence, and if he wishes not to accept the verdict of the people of Scotland expressed on 18 Sept, that is fine. But if he and his party are taking part in the Smith commission in good faith, frankly they should accept that all of us are doing so in good faith.
	For the SNP to accept the verdict of the people, they must accept that the Smith commission’s work will not deliver the content of its White Paper or other outcomes detrimental to the core unity of the UK family—and this comes to the heart of the contribution from the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. The SNP will not get independence by the backdoor. The vow given by the party leaders during the referendum campaign and the timetable that he and others supported are designed to strengthen Scotland within a secure United Kingdom. That is what people voted for, and that is what they will get—more powers for the Scottish Parliament within a modernised United Kingdom and delivered to the timetable we promised. In fairness, the soon-to-be First Minister has acknowledged in her party’s submission to the Smith commission that the outcome of this joint working will not be independence. It is important that negotiations take place with a genuine recognition of that fact.
	The right hon. Gentleman listed 16 areas in which agreement could easily be sought. He will forgive me if I do not address all 16 now, not least because, with the Government having tasked Lord Smith with constructing a consensus, it would be wrong for me, as a Minister, to second-guess the outcome. However, the Smith remit states that his heads of agreement should be consistent with respect for the decision of the people of Scotland on 18 September. In other words, they must be consistent with the continuation of the constitutional framework and integrity necessary to maintain a United Kingdom. The four nations within the family must continue to operate as a single country.
	I also draw to the right hon. Gentleman’s attention the terms of the Command Paper published on Monday. Chapter 2 reminds us of the principles that underpin the Scotland Act 2012: any proposal should first have cross-party support; it should be based on evidence; and it should not be to the detriment of other parts of the UK. On all three points, if Smith came up with proposals that undermined our constitutional integrity, they would not be consistent with the framework that we have set him in the Command Paper. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take comfort from that.
	I have always said that—and this is truer today than it has ever been—the independence referendum offered us the opportunity not just to finish the job of devolution to the Scottish Parliament by giving it the extra powers the right hon. Gentleman and I believe it needs in relation to taxation, welfare and so on, but to implement a process of constitutional change across the whole of the UK. I respectfully say to him and the rest of the House that ultimately the logical conclusion of this journey is a federal structure within the UK. The only way to achieve that in our lifetime is by building the strongest, broadest consensus, and that requires a constitutional convention of the sort to which he referred. Indeed, he and I both know, because we have been around this course several times in Scotland, that that is the way to deliver constitutional change.
	That requires us to bring together others besides just the political parties—it will always fail if it includes only the political parties, because unfortunately they always see things through the prism of their own self-interest. For that reason, we have to bring in wider voices—civic society, the business community, the trade unions, the Churches and just interested citizens who have something to say. It is for that reason that, as somebody who passionately believes in the United Kingdom, I see an opportunity opening out to us now to build a new constitutional architecture. In that respect, I very much hope that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath will remain engaged in the debate, because I believe he has a substantial contribution to make to it.
	We have an unprecedented opportunity. The Smith commission can move forward through the collective endeavour of all five of Scotland’s biggest political parties. Never before has so wide a spectrum of parties come together in Scotland’s interests. That is something to applaud and welcome. All those taking part in this work must be willing to compromise, as the right hon. Gentleman has said today—again, I commend him for the thought that he has obviously put into this already.
	We have an opportunity to harness the energy of both sides of what was a quite remarkable debate and, as a result, secure a better deal for all of Scotland. The Commission will look at serious and weighty issues: taxation, welfare and the role of the Scottish Parliament in our public life. The challenge is to empower Holyrood further and, as a result, make it more accountable to those who elect it. Lord Smith of Kelvin is an able man facing a considerable task. With genuine good will on all sides, he is also the man who can see that task through.
	Of course, this process is not without consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman has already touched on the subject of English votes for English laws. It is clear from the debate we had in House on Tuesday, and indeed from contributions at Scottish questions yesterday, that that will be a live debate for some time to come. As I said at Scottish questions yesterday, in my view it is a solution that, if seen as an end in itself rather than a step along the road, risks creating new problems to replace the ones that already exist in our current constitutional settlement. However, this is a genuine issue that requires genuine consideration within that wider context. The debate itself showed the strength of feeling and brought to light the complexities and intricacies of finding a solution that will strengthen the United Kingdom’s democracy. Again, the one thing that was apparent at the end of six and a half hours’ debate—I was here for nearly all of it—was that there is not yet any clear consensus in England on what the future shape of the constitutional architecture should be.

Cathy Jamieson: indicated assent.

Alistair Carmichael: I see nods coming from the hon. Lady, who also sat through most of that debate.

Ian Murray: I know that time is short, and I appreciate the time the right hon. Gentleman has spent at the Dispatch Box this week re-emphasising that the vow and the timetable are on track, but will he at least acknowledge that the Prime Minister’s clumsy, inappropriate and highly political speech on the morning after the referendum has opened up the door for these kinds of questions to be asked? If he had not done that and had abided by every single part of that vow, we probably would not have been in this position this week.

Alistair Carmichael: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that I think the Prime Minister was reflecting questions that are being asked in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, I am able to give him an assurance from the Dispatch Box today—this is an assurance that repeats the comments of the Prime Minister himself—that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) put it the other day, change in Scotland will not be held up while England catches up. These two debates obviously have issues that have a symmetry and run in parallel, but one debate will not be allowed to hold up the progress of the delivery of the vow in Scotland. As I have said, it is pretty clear that we have already done much of the work and built much of the consensus there that is still required in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Pete Wishart: That’s all right, then.

Alistair Carmichael: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts at last that the United Kingdom parties are proceeding in good faith. It would be a shame if he were unable ever to stand up and say it in public. [Interruption.] We are getting on with it. The hon. Gentleman sits there chuntering from a sedentary position, but he ignores the fact that we have already delivered, ahead of timetable, the Command Paper that was part of the vow. He might not like to accept that we are delivering—that we are doing what he said—but he cannot deny it and that is why he remains in his seat.
	In the few seconds that remain to me, let me say that it is clear that the referendum was won decisively. It might not have been welcomed by the nationalists, but everybody else was pleased that we got the decision that we wanted and that will indeed be good for our children in the future as the years progress.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.